OMFG!!! Comey admits there is NO TRANSCRIPT of the Hillary interview with FBI

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Can you believe this?. They obviously had no plans of indicting hillary even before the interview.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...ecorded-but-it-would-still-be-a-crime-to-lie/

july 7 2016 During testimony before Congress on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBI’s interview with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded, but it still would be a crime to lie to the FBI.

Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the “five or six” who did interview Clinton.

He was then asked, “did she testify or talk to them under oath?” Comey answered, “No.” But added that “it’s still a crime to lie to us.”

When asked if there was a transcript of the interview, Comey stated that there wasn’t one because the interview wasn’t recorded, but there was an analysis of Clinton’s interview.
Click to expand...
 
very odd. how about the rest of her aides? were they deposed? or did they stop by for a cup of coffee?
 
Well, isn't that just dandy.

That doesnt even make sense. The whole point to a deposition is to get people on record. But there's no record?

That's either some serious incompetence on somebody's part or its a cover up.
 
Last edited:
Well isn't it standard practice for the FBI to not document interviews? SHEESH

Remember it isn't a lie if you believe you are telling the truth. That is what Rana says. Hillary Costanza
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Well, isn't that just dandy.

That doesnt even make sense. The whole point to a deposition is to get people on record. But there's no record?

That's either some serious incompetence on somebody's part or its a cover up.
Click to expand...
maybe because she wasn't under oath.But if she had lied to the FBI even while not under oath ( as part ofan investigation) that's a crime..
It makes NO SENSE not to have recorded it.
 
anatta said:
maybe because she wasn't under oath.But if she had lied to the FBI even while not under oath ( as part ofan investigation) that's a crime..
It makes NO SENSE not to have recorded it.
Click to expand...

Just like the Clintons wanted it. No record. When Comey got indignant was when I knew he was lying. It is a tried and true political tactic. The fix was in. I am sure he was threatened or promised something.
 
anatta said:
maybe because she wasn't under oath.But if she had lied to the FBI even while not under oath ( as part ofan investigation) that's a crime..
It makes NO SENSE not to have recorded it.
Click to expand...

An oath is actually redundant in that sense. In either event, it makes no sense to not record it or have a written transcript.

Maybe one of Hillary's people can enlighten us lol.
 
Islam Sucks said:
Just like the Clintons wanted it. No record. When Comey got indignant was when I knew he was lying. It is a tried and true political tactic. The fix was in. I am sure he was threatened or promised something.
Click to expand...

Threatened is right. He didn't want to be vince fostered. Trump should say that.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Well, isn't that just dandy.

That doesnt even make sense. The whole point to a deposition is to get people on record. But there's no record?

That's either some serious incompetence on somebody's part or its a cover up.
Click to expand...

OMG! It reminds me of bush and cheney being interviewed by the 9/11 commission!

"The White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters that the session would not be officially transcribed because the White House considered it a ''private meeting'' that would include highly classified information."
 
Mr. Bush will not be under oath, and the White House has been adamant that what he says should not be considered official testimony.

''He is not testifying, he is talking to them,'' the adviser said. ''A transcript implies testimony. This would open a Pandora's box of all sorts of precedent-setting and legal issues. We were reluctant for the president to do this, anyway.''

Legal scholars said the lack of an official transcript would give the White House some deniability and make it more difficult to use the president's words as evidence in a future suit against the government.

''It gives them more maneuverability in case someone slips up or says something he regrets,'' Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/us/bush-cheney-9-11-interview-won-t-be-formally-recorded.html
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't recall Bush being investigated by the FBI.....when was that again?.....
Click to expand...

I remember both bush and cheney testifying to some govt agency about 9-11 and it was NOT under oath and there was a huge uproar about that. With hillary there was no oath and not even a transcript kept!!! That boggles the mind. Did the interview even happen?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't recall Bush being investigated by the FBI.....when was that again?.....
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The point is about being under oath during an investigation and having your words recorded. What was bush so scared about that he refused to be interviewed alone and demanded that cheney be there to hold his hand through it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top