https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/18/comey-refuses-testify-congress-mccabe-pleads-fifth/ Real profiles in courage here. Comey can tweet stupid **** all day long but not willing to face the music.
And that's why I've long redirected the outrage at Comey toward Lynch. She is the one who really screwed up. He dealt with that screw-up incorrectly, but the root of the problem was her. There should have been a special prosecutor, and the issue of whether or not to indict should never have been punted to Comey. That doesn't excuse his own errors, but he shouldn't have been in the position to make those errors. I've got some problems with that comparison. First, what Gonzales did was not even in the same ballpark as what HRC did. He took some of his own notes home with him and didn't put them in a safe and returned to the office and put them in a safe that two people without adequate security clearance had access to. We were dealing with paper documents that somebody would have had to know existed and then broken into his house or a safe (without getting caught) for it to lead to a serious breach. HRC set up a private, unsecured e-mail server to give herself control over what parts of her work for the State Department could become public and allowed classified information to be stored on it as part of her ordinary course of business. Her intentions were bad from the beginning, and any jackass hacker in the world could have stolen and/or exposed anything on the server with little or no chance of getting caught. That's a much bigger problem. Second, nobody had to butcher a statute to justify not charging Gonzales. He did make meaningful efforts to safeguard the documents and never exposed them to a great degree of risk. One could reasonably argue that he wasn't grossly negligent. With HRC, we had to make things up. We had to pretend that the law required something it didn't require. I'm not saying that Gonzales shouldn't have been charged. I think the case could still have been made, but it was a MUCH closer call than HRC's case.
Strzok to testify? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-trump-texts-open-to-testify-to-congress.html
I think it's easy to predict what he will do. He'll grandstand, portray himself as a victim, and say that, though he does detest Trump and wanted him to lose, he'd never let it impact his work. He'll get embarrassed and kicked around (and Trey Gowdy will curb-stomp him), but he will stick by his guns. Unless there's another piece of dirt out there, he's got no reason not to.
General counsel were the other two FBI investigators caught with TDS. If you didn’t smell the taint before, can you smell it now? General counsel? Whole FBI leadership was tainted.
I saw a tweet where Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building. I think the offer was a desperate attempt to keep his job. Maybe he can shack up with his lover.
Yep. Hopefully now you'll understand why I don't trust the Mueller investigation. The FBI is rotten to its core.
Remember the Dems requested this IG report to investigate Comey’s and the FBI’s role in the 2016 election. If the Dem’s never put on the pink pissy hat, this would have never come out.
I'm not suggesting that you should trust him or anyone else. What I've long suggested is that you shouldn't speculate about what he has or how solid his case is because it's impossible for you to know. The same is true for Switzer who does the reverse.
To me it’s unbelievable the libs claim that Comey cost Hillary the election. If Comey did his job Hillary might not have won a single state. Well Maybe New York, Cal and Washington. Those liberals are just too far gone. They would vote for OJ if he was their candidate.
I'll wait for that action to occur instead of assuming it's going to happen if you don't mind. It's the evidence I have rather than the evidence I want. Making judgments based on the evidence I hope exists rarely ends well.
With all that we've seen from the FBI (with one member saying Trump must be stopped) why do you have faith that this investigation is on the up and up?
