The Hillary-thread

[Tero]

Libertarian wants Hillary impeached

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said.

But that is exactly what the FBI is doing. They have to read those e mails because they showed up. And Comey had to send the letter, merely to save his own ass in this political climate.

[Tyrannical]

So, will they arrest hillary before or after the election lol looks like Russian jokes just got trumped

[Tero]

Trump cannot become president due to civil case for rape in December.

So pick Pence, Hillary or Kaine.

[Forty Two]

Libertarian wants Hillary impeached

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said.

But that is exactly what the FBI is doing. They have to read those e mails because they showed up. And Comey had to send the letter, merely to save his own ass in this political climate.

Comey wrote, "Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

this was part of his internal memo about why he reported to Congress. Normally, he wouldn't, but he'd been compelled to testify about it, and he's supplementing his answers. The investigation was completed, he had sworn, and now it's not. So, he has an obligation to tell them.

At least that's what he says. Maybe his obligation was to not supplement his answers, and then after the election when it was found out that contrary to his sworn testimony before Congress the FBI investigation was actually reopened or continued, after he said it was completed. Maybe that was what he should have done.

[Forty Two]

Trump cannot become president due to civil case for rape in December.

So pick Pence, Hillary or Kaine.

A civil case doesn't prevent him from becoming President.

[Forty Two]

So, we'll see what comes of the Weiner documents. But, as Carl Bernstein noted, it would never have been announced this way unless they thought there was something significant there.

Unless Comey is intent on politicising this and supporting Trump (or punishing Clinton).

The easiest way for Comey to have done that is to have impaneled a grand jury instead of just deciding not to bring charges.

And, lastly, doesn't the fact that they physically took hammers to the relevant devices tell you anything at all about what they're doing? Does it at least send up a smoke signal?

Not at all. Personal information is a valuable commodity, not least if you are a famous public figure.

However, when you are under subpoena from the FBI, if you go ahead and destroy the devices, demanding that the FBI trust you to have turned over everything from those devices that you deem relevant to their subpoena, I can tell you that it won't work out well for you.

If you find that being subpoenaed for emails and other communications, then turning over what you deem responsive and "work related" while deleting others, scrubbing them, wiping them, and bleaching them, and then taking the devices and hammering them to bits, to prevent anyone from being able to see if you, indeed, turned over all responsive documents, is not suspicious, then o.k. I can't argue with what you find reasonable and non-eyebrow-raising. I disagree, and if that behavior was undertaken by any other person other than Hillary, I would find it just as suspicious, and just as unacceptable.

[Tero]

Trump cannot become president due to civil case for rape in December.

So pick Pence, Hillary or Kaine.

A civil case doesn't prevent him from becoming President.

It does in fact. He can be impeached as soon as sworn in. Rapists, even civil, never become president. Some have been, then found. Even a consensual blow job got Bill out.

[pErvinalia]

Libertarian wants Hillary impeached

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said.

But that is exactly what the FBI is doing. They have to read those e mails because they showed up. And Comey had to send the letter, merely to save his own ass in this political climate.

Comey wrote, "Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

this was part of his internal memo about why he reported to Congress. Normally, he wouldn't, but he'd been compelled to testify about it, and he's supplementing his answers. The investigation was completed, he had sworn, and now it's not. So, he has an obligation to tell them.

At least that's what he says. Maybe his obligation was to not supplement his answers, and then after the election when it was found out that contrary to his sworn testimony before Congress the FBI investigation was actually reopened or continued, after he said it was completed. Maybe that was what he should have done.

What kind of busted up logic is that? It can't be contrary to his Congress testimony if it happened after his Congress testimony.

[pErvinalia]

So, we'll see what comes of the Weiner documents. But, as Carl Bernstein noted, it would never have been announced this way unless they thought there was something significant there.

Unless Comey is intent on politicising this and supporting Trump (or punishing Clinton).

The easiest way for Comey to have done that is to have impaneled a grand jury instead of just deciding not to bring charges.

And, lastly, doesn't the fact that they physically took hammers to the relevant devices tell you anything at all about what they're doing? Does it at least send up a smoke signal?

Not at all. Personal information is a valuable commodity, not least if you are a famous public figure.

However, when you are under subpoena from the FBI, if you go ahead and destroy the devices, demanding that the FBI trust you to have turned over everything from those devices that you deem relevant to their subpoena, I can tell you that it won't work out well for you.

If you find that being subpoenaed for emails and other communications, then turning over what you deem responsive and "work related" while deleting others, scrubbing them, wiping them, and bleaching them, and then taking the devices and hammering them to bits, to prevent anyone from being able to see if you, indeed, turned over all responsive documents, is not suspicious, then o.k. I can't argue with what you find reasonable and non-eyebrow-raising. I disagree, and if that behavior was undertaken by any other person other than Hillary, I would find it just as suspicious, and just as unacceptable.

Ah ok, I didn't realise she smashed them up after the subpoena.

[Forty Two]

Trump cannot become president due to civil case for rape in December.

So pick Pence, Hillary or Kaine.

A civil case doesn't prevent him from becoming President.

It does in fact. He can be impeached as soon as sworn in. Rapists, even civil, never become president. Some have been, then found. Even a consensual blow job got Bill out.

It doesn't, in fact. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." A civil suit is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" -- a high crime or misdemeanor involves an allegation that the official abused the power of his office.

Your comment is really bizarre. "Rapists, even civil, never become president?" What's one example? Also, "even a consensual blow job got Bill out?" No, it didn't. He wasn't impeached for getting a blowjob. He was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He also won his impeachment hearing in the House, so he wasn't out. He was later disbarred from the practice of law because of his conduct, but he was not "out" as President.

[Forty Two]

Libertarian wants Hillary impeached

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said.

But that is exactly what the FBI is doing. They have to read those e mails because they showed up. And Comey had to send the letter, merely to save his own ass in this political climate.

Comey wrote, "Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

this was part of his internal memo about why he reported to Congress. Normally, he wouldn't, but he'd been compelled to testify about it, and he's supplementing his answers. The investigation was completed, he had sworn, and now it's not. So, he has an obligation to tell them.

At least that's what he says. Maybe his obligation was to not supplement his answers, and then after the election when it was found out that contrary to his sworn testimony before Congress the FBI investigation was actually reopened or continued, after he said it was completed. Maybe that was what he should have done.

What kind of busted up logic is that? It can't be contrary to his Congress testimony if it happened after his Congress testimony.

A witness is under a general duty to supplement their testimony where subsequent events make the witness aware that his prior answer has become incomplete or incorrect. In this case, he had testified that the investigation was complete. The notification he gave to Congress was to supplement, stating that the investigation was, in fact, not complete.

[pErvinalia]

Libertarian wants Hillary impeached

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said.

But that is exactly what the FBI is doing. They have to read those e mails because they showed up. And Comey had to send the letter, merely to save his own ass in this political climate.

Comey wrote, "Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

this was part of his internal memo about why he reported to Congress. Normally, he wouldn't, but he'd been compelled to testify about it, and he's supplementing his answers. The investigation was completed, he had sworn, and now it's not. So, he has an obligation to tell them.

At least that's what he says. Maybe his obligation was to not supplement his answers, and then after the election when it was found out that contrary to his sworn testimony before Congress the FBI investigation was actually reopened or continued, after he said it was completed. Maybe that was what he should have done.

What kind of busted up logic is that? It can't be contrary to his Congress testimony if it happened after his Congress testimony.

A witness is under a general duty to supplement their testimony where subsequent events make the witness aware that his prior answer has become incomplete or incorrect.

got any proof of that?

[Forty Two]

got any proof of that?

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-m ... ils-514825\

Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true.

[Tero]

Plenty of perjury, tax fraud and the lot from Trump. He will be spared all that humiliation once he pays off the rape case and we bury Trump from US history.

[Forty Two]

Plenty of perjury, tax fraud and the lot from Trump.

Really? Perjury? Where? Tax "fraud?" Or tax "avoidance?"

He will be spared all that humiliation once he pays off the rape case and we bury Trump from US history.

Sure, 22 year old allegations contained in an anonymous civil complaint filed in New York after an earlier civil complaint for the same conduct was dismissed in California federal court because the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and after she voluntarily dismissed a second such suit, and later filed this third one.

But, it will be handled in due course. There will be a case management conference, and Trump will file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). We'll see if it gets past that stage. If it does, then they'll move for summary judgment under rule 56, based on the statute of limitations among other things.

Regardless, 22 year old allegations brought up in a civil suit aren't impeachable offenses.