Why is the FBI so slow on Clinton e-mail probe?

[Jim_Higgins]

Why is the FBI so slow on Clinton e-mail probe?
http://tinyurl.com/hsbga83

--
Hussein Obama working hard to destroy America

[mg]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:18:29 -0400, Jim_Higgins
<gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Why is the FBI so slow on Clinton e-mail probe?
>http://tinyurl.com/hsbga83
>

Rumors have it that FBI Director Comey will resign if the Justice
Department doesn't indict Clinton. If that's the case, my guess
would be that Comey is dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's
and wrapping it all up in a nice bow before he presents it to the
Justice Department.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that the FBI has
expanded the investigation beyond the emails to public corruption.

[Jim_Higgins]

Adding corruption as a separate case would be one thing but adding it to
the email case would take forever :-(

[mg]

It's all just conjecture, of course, but I agree that a public
corruption investigation would be immensely more complicated than
the email investigation. In fact, guilty or not guilty, the email
investigation should be quite simple, I would think.

If there was a second investigation going on with public corruption,
though, it makes sense that Comey would want to finish both of them
at the same time so that they are finished before he resigns,
assuming he does.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Another possibility is that it's bullshit, and the Director who
threatened to resign is a born-again bullshitter. I don't know
anything about him, but that's the first thing that comes to
my mind. I know you don't agree because you're all
wrapped up in anti-Hillary nutcasery. I do agree that as
with most politicos, there are some things she didn't do
wisely or perfectly, but really!

[El Castor]

I suppose the corruption angle would likely involve Clinton Foundation
email uncovered in the course of the probe. Hard to say how
complicated that would be.

And, the Comey rumors may not be true. The delays could be purely
political. Would that be a huge surprise?

[Gary]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:18:29 -0400, Jim_Higgins
<gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Why is the FBI so slow on Clinton e-mail probe?
>http://tinyurl.com/hsbga83

I think it is all very simple. The FBI is under the control of the
Dept of Justice. Which is headed up by the Attorney General. Who
is -- Loretta Lynch. She is one of Dumbama's favorite cabinet
members.

Why would Barry not want to see Hillary arrested ? He owes his
presidency to Hilly and Billy. They were kind enough to step aside
in 2008 and help him to become the first (of his kind) to be
president. He will order Loretta to keep the FBI off her until she
wins the election in November. At which time -- he will pardon her.

[mg]

The threat to resign is just a rumor. So, I think it would be
premature to judge him based on that rumor. Comey appears to have a
good reputation for integrity and honesty. Here's an excerpt from
Wiki. Interestingly, here's a case where he has threatened to resign
before:

"NSA domestic wiretapping

In early January 2006, The New York Times, as part of its
investigation into domestic surveillance by the National Security
Agency, reported that Comey, who was Acting Attorney General during
the March 2004 hospitalization of John Ashcroft, refused to certify
the legality of central aspects of the NSA program. The
certification was required under White House procedures in order for
the program to continue.[16]

After Comey's refusal, the newspaper reported, Andrew H. Card Jr.,
White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White
House counsel and future Attorney General, made a visit to the
George Washington University Hospital to attempt to win approval
directly from Ashcroft for the program.[16] According to the 2007
memoir of Jack Goldsmith, who had been head of the Office of Legal
Counsel at the time, Comey went to the hospital to give Ashcroft
support in withstanding pressure from the White House.

Comey confirmed these events took place (but declined to confirm the
specific program) in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on
16 May 2007.[17][18][19][20][21][22] FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
III, like Comey, also supported Ashcroft's decision; both men were
prepared to resign if the White House ignored the Department of
Justice's legal conclusions on the wiretapping issue. FBI director
Mueller's notes on the March 10, 2004, incident, which were released
to a House Judiciary committee, confirms that he "Saw [the] AG, John
Ashcroft in the room. AG is feeble, barely articulate, clearly
stressed."[23] Comey withdrew his threat to resign after meeting
directly with President Bush, who gave his support to making changes
in the surveillance program.[24]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey

[mg]

Yes, absolutely; those are just rumors and nothing else. So, there's
no reason to assume that they are true.

Comey (who is incidentally a Republican) appears to have good
reputation for integrity. Here's an excerpt from Wiki.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I spotted the name "Ashcroft" in there. Cross your fingers,
and turn around three times.

[mg]

There's a built-in dilemma with prosecuting a former president or a
potential future president in that it can look like political
persecution. If the person actually becomes president then the
impeachment process is obviously the best way to spread the blame
around. However, an impeachment trial requires a two-thirds majority
for a guilty verdict, which is difficult to get, assuming that the
one party votes against and the other party votes in favor.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[El Castor]

True. Not something that should be taken lightly.

[mg]

It does wind up putting presidents above the law, though, and after
they leave office, the pattern seems to be to give them a pardon.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:

<snip>

>It does wind up putting presidents above the law, though, and after
>they leave office, the pattern seems to be to give them a pardon.

I saw something disgusting on the TV yesterday, which I may
have heard about before but I'd forgotten about it or not
realized how bad it was at the time.

Eight years ago, a 22-year old guy was murdered by three
thugs for no reason. The thugs got 20-year prison sentences.
After 7 years, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as one of his last
acts as governor, commuted the sentences. One of the
thugs is the son of Fabian Núñez, a close political ally of
Schwarzenegger. The TV spot noted that when the parents
of the murdered kid appealed, the judge said that although
he found Schwarzenegger's action repulsive, there was
nothing he could do because the governor had acted within
his powers.

The parents of the murdered kid said that they now had
first-hand experience of the difference between being
politically well-connected and not being well-connected.

I used to enjoy Schwarzenegger, but my opinion of him
has turned on a dime, now that I've heard about, or paid
more attention to, this case.

http://tinyurl.com/zojbfgm

[mg]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-- Lord Acton

[El Castor]

The danger is the banana republic syndrome -- the former El Presidente
goes before the firing squad. Not something we want to get into unless
it's blatant bribery, or something of that sort. Still ... it would be
nice to see "Hillary Indicted", front page New York Times. (-8

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 23:55:52 -0700, El Castor

Blatant bribery ? Like $300,000 for a twenty minute speech ? But
.... I suppose they would consider that to be "compensation for
services rendered".

[El Castor]

Whoa!! Gary! You have to stop exaggerating! Hillary only charges
$225,000 for a 20 minute speech.

Problem is, when a politician is out of office, they are free to roam
around the world reaping huge sums for sharing 20 minutes of "wisdom".
Everyone knows this is a down payment on political influence should
they ever return to power -- not a bribe. Bribe is when you are Spiro
Agnew.