Hillary Roadhog Clinton is not going to jail

Can't really put your boss in jail.

>>55743
She won't be going to jail because she didn't do anything seriously wrong.

>>55771
Politicians are supposed to be saints.

When they do something remotely wrong they're supposed to face the harshest of consequences.

>>55773
According to whom? Hollywood?

>>55771
>just to be clear, this is not saying anyone who does this in a similar situation will not be charged

Being part of illuminati cult is immunity to prosecution. Or jail.

>>55773
>Politicians are supposed to be saints.

I came here to laugh at you

>>55768
This.

Clinton, by all metrics, is going to win the election
What sense does it possibly make to investigate the person who is going to be your boss? She's just going to fire you and cancel the investigation anyway.

FBI is the least corrupt organization in the earth.

So I guess Hillary really did nothing wrong.

HillaryForPrison2016

I enjoyed this reports point of view.

http://www.attn.com/stories/9670/fbi-recommends-no-criminal-charges-for-hillary-clinton

>>55823
She technically didn't break the law according to the evidence they were able to obtain.

She was still extremely careless and also lied.

>>55743
I saw this in a youtube vid.

That dude who announced the news on Tuesday, he didn't say a word on Clinton Foundation. Maybe clinton will be charged with corruption through there, because clinton had the server to specifically hide the CF from the government.

>>56021
>also lied

What exactly did she lie about?

If it was that she didn't use the server for classified info, it's true since the info was not classified at the time. The carelessness is that the info was still sensitive and documents were subject to later classification (though previous Secs had grumbled about this).

Btw, those who might think no emails are classified until reviewed haven't seen the footer of a .mil email address. Plenty of docs are classified upon writing based on whatever standards might be established beforehand based on mission, etc.

>>56027
she was diliberatly exchanging classified intelligence on a private server.
They were classified later because the information she shared WAS classified at the time she shared them.
If I have knowledge of the location of a consulate convoy, or a submarine, and I share that information, that's exchanging classified info regardless if it was or was not marked classified.
She lied multiple times about it not being classified, and now her defence is "it wasn't MARKED classified"; if she is literally that dumb to believe that it's only classified if it's MARKED classified, she has zero competence, total incompetence, and no ability to hold a public office.
The FBI even said
>>55775
which basically means
"if it wasn't Hilllary Clinton, we would recommend prosecution.

>>56058
t. breitbart

>>55743
This is not the prosecutors decision. We need to wait for that before we know if the shill is going to prison or not.

>>56063
>if the shill is going to prison or not
well it's a good thing you aren't a prosecutor.

>>55773
I suppose we should fire all the adulterous or diddling congressmen then.

>>56059
Not

>>56064
Sorry I follow the law and think this crazy politician breaking it deserves to be locked up.

>>56078
Well the chief of the FBI, who is a non-partisan unlike yourself, disagrees. In fact he says it doesn't rise to the level of prosecution and that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Furthermore, he said large sections of the US Government have been hacked before and blamed the culture of laxity in general instead of blaming Clinton specifically.

>>56059
You mean director of the FB fucking I. I don't give a shit about brietbart.

But no, keep on believing Hillary is a saint.

>>56081
No reasonable prosecutor would charge you with going 35 in a 30 mph zone, Anon. Thus it is so with what Hillary did. The "Crime" rises to the level of administrative punitive action and no further.

tl;dr; it's misdemeanor level shit, Anon, congrats on falling for the political theater sideshow

>>56079
"it was careless, not criminal" You're right, this guy sure makes a good point! It's a good thing this person is a candidate for the presidency.

"non-partisan" I am a partisan for using a meme?

>>56082
You are using speeding as an analogy here? Jesus christ man, you win the argument I can't deal with this level of trolling.

>>56082
What I think is that the FBI made the right call based on the evidence they had available. What she did was not found to be criminal, but I think it certainty disqualifies her from holding the presidency. You can screw up at your job and get fired but it doesn't mean you're going to be thrown in jail. That's what I think this is analogous to.

I don't like this narrative of trying to discredit the FBI ruling. I think they did a great job at remaining as non-partisan as they could in this extremely political event.

She screwed up bad. I don't think any reasonable person should vote for her because of this. But criminal? It appears to fall just short of that.

>>56086
>certainty disqualifies her from holding the presidency.
There are levels of carelessness I'm prepared to accept. I'll take a lax president over one who practices trickledown reagonomics anyday but to each his own.

Hillary is definitely guilty.

It is also illegal to charge her with a crime.

>>56141
AG Loretta Lynch declines to press charges against Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-emails-no-charges/

For the people who say she didn't technically do anything wrong, what she did, by law was completely illegal.

With all the operational security training government workers and military personnel get, nobody is going to respect her at all as commander-in-chief. She should have thought really hard about running for president in the information age. Shit, all of the candidates should have.

>>56151
>Federal law makes it a crime for a trusted U.S. official to “knowingly and willfully” disclose or transmit secret information to an “unauthorized person.” A second law makes it a crime to “remove” secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through “gross negligence.”

>Neither law applies clearly or directly to what FBI Director James B. Comey described Tuesday as Hillary Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of classified emails that were sent through her private system when she was the secretary of State.

>“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward.”

>Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html

>>56152
>>55775

>>56058
She also lied about how many devices she used.

>>56152
her defense is pretty much
>im completely ignorant about everything, i did nothing wrong.

obvious bullshit, but i guess its enough when youre above the law.

>>56177
No she didn't. Republicans on the committee are conflating upgrading multiple devices with having more than one device active at a time. She never had more than one server going at once, she upgraded computers as computers got faster.

>>56198
Did you even read the copypasted paragraph? She didn't do anything wrong in the first place to have to defend.

>>56614
>upgrading multiple devices
She had more then one device then, didn't she?

>>56619
No, not at the same time.

Why is every charge against her based on some kind of false premise?

>>56623
Dude, If I'm sharing classified info with unauthorized parties (yes even if it's an unauthorized computer blindly storing the files) and I decide to upgrade my lappy so I can leak state secrets faster, guess what? I get double-jeapordied for using more than one device.

lrn2espionage

>>56614
>She didn't do anything wrong in the first place to have to defend.

>Had Spacial Access Program level documents on unsecured devices.

>now wikileaks and russia have them

lol, sure bud.

>>56025
CF is the cancer that rots the government

>>56627
There isn't any proof that she shared classified info with unauthorized parties. If she had she'd be getting indicted right now. I'm not going to pretend like I don't understand why conservative media says she did anyway ad nauseum though, because they're grasping at straws.

>>56641
Wikileaks FOIA requested those emails, 'bud".

http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails/

>>56021
She did break the law. She and her colleagues mishandled classified information. They pulled it off a secure, closed network and transferred it to an unclassified network. This is a crime and many have been punished for doing the same thing. The fact that they all denied wrongdoing is even worse.

>>56083
Carelessness and negligence are not valid defenses when it comes to mishandling of classified information. This is clearly pointed out in the periodic training that I and every other clearance holder receives.

>>55743
her ass is 2 big 2 jail i can tell ya that

>>56662
>There isn't any proof that she shared classified info with unauthorized parties.
The FBI director literally said so under oath yesterday.

Also wikileaks has more than the stuff they got from the FOIA requests, those are small fish.

>>56021
>She technically didn't break the law
Which technicality is it that allows you to claim you didnt break the law, when your actions violated the law?

Is it the "oops I didnt mean to" technicality? The "I'm only the former secretary of state and am therefore incompetent" technicality?

Comey said she broke the law, then overstepped his bounds and said they wont prosecute (not at all his decision) because he believed she didnt intend to break the law.

>>56789
>The FBI director literally said so under oath yesterday.

>"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
-James Comey

>>56810
It isn't a technicality. Stop reading shit-tier newssources that politicize everything and learn what really happened.

>>56830
>"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
Why are you bringing up irrelevant statements?

We're talking about whether or not she gave access to classified info to non-authorized personnel.

Here's what you said
>There isn't any proof that she shared classified info with unauthorized parties

Here's what Comey said under oath
>>>/wsg/1173498

Go ahead and deny it again.

>>56830
>>"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
>-James Comey

How would he know if they did the last interview informally, off the record, without oath, and he wasnt even there?

This is all beside the fact that she might not have lied to the FBI (doubtful), but she lied to the American people numerous times.

Also explain to me why you think it's reasonable for the FBI director to announce whether or not they're pressing charges when he has 0 authority to do so.

>>56849
Nice cherrypicked clip. I stand by what I said earlier about shit-tier newssources. Here's what Comey really said:

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/751062575039864832
>Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law?
>Comey: She did not.

>>56866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302

>>56869
>Nice cherrypicked clip.
You are a retard. It's not cherrypicked, it's an admission that she broke the law.

>Here's what Comey really said:
You do realize that he was asked question for over an hour, right? You do also realize that he has an unheard of definition of "breaking the law" which require intent for guilt?

Not surprising since Comey has a history of letting the Clintons off the hook.

>>56869
>unending stream of evidence proving she broke the law in both word and spirit

>b-but she didnt intend to so it's fine guys

>>56877
I didn't realize that a lack of intent was required. So if I shoot and kill someone and only meant to wound them, I should get a free pass because murder was never my intention. Welcome to the world of idiocracy!

>>56875
It isn't an admission she broke the law when 5 minutes after your clip ends he specifically says she didn't break any laws.

>>56877
Enjoy your butthurt at her not getting indicted because she didn't do anything to begin with.

It isn't my fault you don't trust the republican FBI director.

>>56885
>It isn't an admission she broke the law when 5 minutes after your clip ends he specifically says she didn't break any laws.
Sharing confidential and classified info with people without clearance is a crime. This isnt debatable.

When Comey said Clinton didnt break the law, he's mistaking his opinion for due process apparently.

>Enjoy your butthurt at her not getting indicted because she didn't do anything to begin with.
Except, you know, violate the law, as has been proven and has been stated by the FBI several times.

How much does Correct the Record pay you?

>>56896
>Sharing confidential and classified info with people without clearance is a crime.
Yeah she didn't do that. The only thing that isn't debatable is that the Republican-appointed, Republican-voting FBI director said she didn't break any laws and that no reasonable, non-partisan prosecutor would bring charges against her for the things which were alleged that she personally did.

Correct the record doesn't pay me anything, I simply don't read partisan trash for news like you apparently do.

>>56900
>Yeah she didn't do that
>>>/wsg/1173498

Need I remind you that he was under oath?

Tell me what non-partisan news sources you read told you that abhorrent violations of security protocols aren't crimes.

Which non-partisan group thinks it's ok to give beyond top-secret Special Access Program level documents to people without clearance?

>>56900
>Yeah she didn't do that.
Denial is ugly.
>The only thing that isn't debatable is that the Republican-appointed, Republican-voting FBI director
Not an argument or relevant. Also he stated that he's no longer a registered republican.

Not that it matters because the corruption surrounding the Clintons crosses both sides of the aisle.
>no reasonable, non-partisan prosecutor would bring charges against her for the things which were alleged that she personally did.
That's literally something he had no authority to say. And yes, there are several prosecutors who'd take the case to stand up against 3rd-world levels of corruption.

>>56904
Need I remind you that five minutes after your clip ends he specifically says she didn't break any laws?

>Comey: "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
>Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law?
>Comey: She did not.


>what non-partisan news sources
No you don't get it, I read *every* newssource, partisan or not. That's the only way you can ever find out what really happened. You also apparently don't get that her lawyers had clearance.

>Hillary Clinton's lawyer had 'top secret' clearance
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-lawyer-top-secret-clearance-121736

If you spent 30 minutes and bothered to look at what actually happened according to the transcript, she 'passed' exactly 3 emails out of over 30000 that were erroneously marked classified in the body of the email (and not in the header, where she could have seen it before opening it).

>>56907
>Denial is ugly
Tell it to the congressional republicans who can't accept what Comey recommended.
>Not an argument or relevant. Also he stated that he's no longer a registered republican.Not an argument or relevant. Also he stated that he's no longer a registered republican.
>It isn't relevant because I say so!
Okay sure. In fact it is relevant. Wake up and smell the taxpayer-funded politicized kabuki theater partisan witchhunt hearings.
>That's literally something he had no authority to say.
No of course, he's only the head of the agency who recommends whether prosecution happens or not.


I'm interested in hearing more about how outraged the conservative clickbait that mislead you into thinking she did all these imaginary things has made you though if you want to go on. Impotent conservative stammering is a turn-on for me.

>>56908
>Need I remind you that five minutes after your clip ends he specifically says she didn't break any laws?
Need I remind you that that is his opinion, which is based on the insane requirement that she intended to break the law?

He literally said under oath that she shared top secret materials with people without clearance. That is a crime.

>she 'passed' exactly 3 emails out of over 30000 that were erroneously marked classified in the body of the email (and not in the header, where she could have seen it before opening it).
You know what could have prevented that? Using an official server rated for top-secret information, like any other official who handles such material is REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW. The headers did not say "top-secret" because they had purposely stripped that from the email.

Next time you admit she violated the law, think back to what position you're supposed to be arguing.

>>56910
If you dont smell the collusion in all of this, then you're either a retard, or you're fine with the US turning into a 3rd-world shithole.

>>56916
>He literally said under oath that she shared top secret materials with people without clearance. That is a crime.
That was based on the false premise that her lawyers didn't have security clearances when they did.

I already linked an article about that but have another:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-lawyer-explains-his-top-secret-clearance/
>You know what could have prevented that? Using an official server rated for top-secret information
Objectily false, if you would have paid attention you would have known that Manning leaked The entire State Department and half the military. Those were the "Official" Servers you're talking about, and that's to say nothing of the times they actually got hacked by Russians or Chinese or the Syrian Electronic Army or Anonymous.
>Next time you admit she violated the law, think back to what position you're supposed to be arguing.v
Next time you accuse someone of violating the law it would help to have the director of the FBI agree with you and not give a press conference where he gives the exact opposite position.
>If you dont smell the collusion in all of this, then you're either a retard, or you're fine with the US turning into a 3rd-world shithole.If you dont smell the collusion in all of this, then you're either a retard, or you're fine with the US turning into a 3rd-world shithole.
How's that confirmation bias working for you? Have you had it long?

>>56908
Let me ask you a few questions:

Is it illegal to store top-secret info in systems not rated for it?
>yes

Is it illegal for someone to share top-secret info with those without clearance?
>yes

Is it a crime regardless of intent, due to specific wording about "gross negligence"?
>yes

Did Hillary Clinton do both of the above things, in addition to purging an estimated 30k emails before handing the rest to the FBI?
>yes

Answer them yourself, and explain to me how there was no crime committed. Please as be detailed as possible. I'd really like to know how violating the law, and having the FBI verify that is was violated, equates to there being no crime.

>inb4 hurr Comey said no crime
Explain how Comey came to that decision without relying on his own absurd notion that you need intent to violate a law that specifically omits intent as a prerequisite.

>>56921
>hat was based on the false premise that her lawyers didn't have security clearances when they did.
No, it's based on the fact that Special Access Programs level intel was shared with people without clearance.

There's also the fact that her sysadmin had 0 clearance and complete access.

>Objectily false

No, True. Manning violated the law in a very different manner. Part of the requirements in the official mail system is that TOP SECRET INTEL GETS LABELED CORRECTLY.

Ultimately you yourself know you're wrong, which is why you're relying on Comey's press conference so much, and the rest of the US knows you're wrong, which is why the investigation continues.

I'm done posting in this lousy thread, but this whole thing is far from over. I'll see you defending a criminal in the nest thread.

>>56922
>Is it illegal to store top-secret info in systems not rated for it?
It wasn't until her last year in office as SoS, and she thought herself grandfathered in. Obama knew her server was in her basement and did nothing because he too thought there was nothing wrong with it. 8 of the emails on her server were from Obama.
>Is it illegal for someone to share top-secret info with those without clearance?v
Good thing she didn't do that then.
>Is it a crime regardless of intent, due to specific wording about "gross negligence"?
No, in fact only one other person has been charged under the same statute since 1917 and he was acquitted. To charge her now would be applying a different standard to her than everyone else, exactly what you are accusing Comey of doing.
>Did Hillary Clinton do both of the above things, in addition to purging an estimated 30k emails before handing the rest to the FBI?
I think you are mistaking her upgrading servers and loosing some of them in the transition for "purposely deleted". Comey said specifically that neither her nor her lawyers "purposely" deleted anything with any malintent. Clinton’s lawyers did not go through every single email. Comey said they used header information and search terms to try to find all work-related emails. Comey said that it was “highly likely that their search missed some work-related emails.” That isn't "willfully or purposely" deleting anything

>Answer them yourself,
You realize that from my perspective you should already know all this stuff yourself.

>Explain how Comey came to that decision without relying on his own absurd notion that you need intent to violate a law that specifically omits intent as a prerequisite.

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

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/

>>56924
>There's also the fact that her sysadmin had 0 clearance and complete access.
The sysadmin Brian (and his successors) all testified under oath they never read even one of the emails.
>Manning
Manning charges have nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the illusion that the State Department's servers are safe and secure alternative (or any US Government Server for that matter). I could fill up the rest of this post text limit with links to articles detailing all the times the US Government has been hacked lately but I'm sure you've seen one or two. If the state government hackers/crackers/bruteforcers don't get them then the teenagers do.

>>56927
>It wasn't until her last year in office as SoS, and she thought herself grandfathered in. Obama knew her server was in her basement and did nothing because he too thought there was nothing wrong with it. 8 of the emails on her server were from Obama.
You didnt answer my question, though you did admit that Clinton think rules are for other people and Obama was privy to her lawbreaking.

>Good thing she didn't do that then.
>>>/wsg/1173498

>No, in fact only one other person has been charged under the same statute since 1917 and he was acquitted.
And how does this invalidate the law? Is the law still on the books? Why should it be ignored now?

>I think you are mistaking her upgrading servers and loosing some of them in the transition for "purposely deleted"
You dont just lose 30k emails in an upgrade.

Also, after the upgrade what happened to the old hardware? Were the hard drives disposed of to a federal standard? Does anyone even know?

Listen: Crimes dont become legal just because someone hasnt been prosecuted for a while under that law. The law itself has her guilty, and the only premise under which she is innocent is rejecting the validity of a law that is still active in the united states.

You can either attack the law as unjust (it isnt) while admitting she violated it, or you can just say she violated it but it doesnt matter, because the rule of law doesnt matter.

>>56927
You obviously didn't watch the thing

https://youtu.be/bC1Mc6-RDyQ

Each of the allegations was true and all of it was illegal. Educate yourself with watching through the video

>>56932
It's like I already said at the top of the thread >>56082
>tl;dr; it's misdemeanor level shit, Anon, congrats on falling for the political theater sideshow

You keep posting >>>>/wsg/1173498 like I haven't already debunked it >>56869 and >>56908

>You dont just lose 30k emails in an upgrade.
They didn't. I keep trying to tell you that.
>The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond....
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

>>56933
No, I actually watched the entire thing the day it happened, which is how I know that five minutes after the original clip ended he clarifies that she didn't actuually break any laws. That's why in the real world outside of your conservative witchhunt bubbleworld there are stories like
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law
and
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html
and
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-legal-analysts-hillary-clinton-didnt-break-the-law/

>>56934
>You keep posting >>>>/wsg/1173498 like I haven't already debunked it >>56869 and >>56908

That's not debunking. Comey's statement is an opinion, it is a fact that she violated the word of the law.

>>56936
>watched the whole thing
>saw first had how every democrat didnt ask questions relating to the matter, wasted time, and brought up irrelevant crap
>saw every repub grill Comey and force him to elaborate in detail the plethora of ways she violated the law, saw them make him explain his pathetically weak reasoning for not recommending charges

Either we didnt watch the same hearing, or you're one hell of a useful idiot.

>>56938
>Comey's statement is an opinion,

>Attorney General Accepts Recommendation Not to Charge Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-loretta-lynch.html

lol

>Either we didnt watch the same hearing, or you're one hell of a useful idiot.
No, I'm just not burdened by that mountain of demonization and confirmation bias that is telling you Hillary is guilty before being proved innocent.

>>56940
>>Comey's statement is an opinion,
>>Attorney General Accepts Recommendation Not to Charge Hillary Clinton
How does that counter what I said?

The AG is incompetent as Comey is and bought into the reasoning that you need to intend to break the law to break it.

You would probably love to live in SA or Africa, the levels of corruption an disregard for the law would be right up your alley.

>>56943
It doesn't counter what you said but it shows how everything you say a delayed butthurt reaction to the fact that The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI both agree that charges aren't warranted for what she did.

Now if you want to argue about how much administrative punitive action she should receive then that's another topic, but I'm your huckleberry.

>government's legitimacy is questioned, collusion is suspected
>"lol you guys are idiots, they investigated themselves and found no wrong doing, take the government's word for it"

Whew.

>>56948
That argument might have more weight if the previous administration hadn't appointed the current FBI director and his job wasn't to be as non-partisan and independent as possible.

I mean, do you want J. Edgar Hoover to come back from the dead and charge Hillary as a commie or something?

>>56956
>That argument might have more weight if the previous administration hadn't appointed the current FBI director
Irrelevant. The previous administration was corrupt and is likely guilty of war crimes. Also, Comey stated that he's no longer a registered republican, and this isnt the first time he's let the Clintons slide.

God forbid we uphold our laws after a period of them being abused, right?

>>56959
>Irrelevant
It isn't. The previous administration and its cronies are quite hostile to this administration and its lackeys.

>The previous administration was corrupt and is likely guilty of war crimes.
Now *that's* irrelevant.

>Comey stated that he's no longer a registered republican, and this isnt the first time he's let the Clintons slide.Comey stated that he's no longer a registered republican, and this isnt the first time he's let the Clintons slide.Comey stated that he's no longer a registered republican, and this isnt the first time he's let the Clintons slide.
I don't know what you're talking about but the fact that he tried Clinton's CIA head in 1995 with treason kind of contradicts that. Try harder next time.

>God forbid we uphold our laws after a period of them being abused, right?
Yeah God forbid you take the chief law enforcement officer's word for it, right?

>>56962
>Blindly trusting the government

Just imagine what our country will be like in 100 years when everyone has this mindset. No one will question government officials.

>>56963
Of, for, and by the people, bubba.

You know who said that? A republican.

>>56962
>The previous administration and its cronies are quite hostile to this administration and its lackeys
Lol, this administration is nothing but an extension of the last.
>Now *that's* irrelevant.
No, you seem to think that Comey is impartial because the previous admin appointed him. The reputability of the previous admin is then a legitimate concern.
>I don't know what you're talking about but the fact that he tried Clinton's CIA head in 1995 with treason kind of contradicts that.
And I suppose we'll ignore him steering clear of the Clintons in the Berger case.

>>56971
>Lol, this administration is nothing but an extension of the last.
According to whom? The far right or the far left?
>No, you seem to think that Comey is impartial because the previous admin appointed him.
No it's the opposite, I'm accusing him of being biased AGAINST Hillary for being a Republican. Loretta Lynch was also a Republican Bush administration appointee who could have been mentioned as a GOP pick for Supreme Court before Obama happened to appoint her to something, and thus ever since she is tarred as a liberal by reactionary wingnuts.

>>56971
>And I suppose we'll ignore him steering clear of the Clintons in the Berger case.
He didn't "steer clear" of anything. I love how failure to find justification for witchhunts is "steering clear" in the bubbleworld of right wing media.

The real reason is because of the CLINTON FOUNDATION which runs guns, classified information, favors, money laundering and hitmen the world over. Most of the people in the DOJ who'd be responsible for prosecution probably have their hands in the cookie jar. Thats why.

>>56974
everytime a fool plays the LEFT vs RIGHT game, JP Morgan grows a new pube.

>>57013
Learn what Big Tent Politics is and why it's superior.

>>55773
Men are not angels

>>57036
Of course they aren't. If they were, we wouldn't need laws, or consequences for breaking those laws.

There is a social contract between the people and the government. If the government does not abide by the terms of the contract, yet demands that I do, the contract has no moral basis. This is Magna Carta fucking stuff, not rocket science.

it's not like it matters anyways

>if she is jailed, trump would win the presidency
>if she gets a get-out-of-jail-free card, you get "I can't believe she got away with it, fuck it, I'm voting for trump"

>>56078
Prosecution has very little to do with values or emotion. Cry more.
Prosecution is about presenting evidence to a judge and jury. If you hold a grudge then that actually detracts from your case.

>>56940
>Attorney General Accepts Recommendation
Oh, do you mean THAT Attorney General that just the other day before this mess met with Bill Clinton?

>clinton did nothing wrong according to multiple investigators
>people still want to follow rule of law, which is good

>trump child abuse case was dismissed and then refiled in June
>people say they shouldn't even bother taking it to court

Practice some consistency guys. If we're going to pay out the ass for court costs, we might as well make use of them.

>>57098
>chid abuse case on Trump
>Holding any water at all

>>57111
That's not for you to decide. It's for a judge and jury to decide. I also think it's flimsy, but I'm not being a biased beta about it.