Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,968
126
#1
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2002
18,674
1,813
136
#2
After reading the DM article there was no order not to charge.

FAIL AGAIN. What a loser you are.
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#4
You should read your own articles rather than just looking at headlines:

"And the Justice Department's assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge, and also that it had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge "

Besides, you should be thrilled they didn't go ahead with a gross negligence charge. If those standards were applied to the current administration Trump and most of the administration would have been removed a long time ago. In fact, if the same standards were applied, the Trump campaign would have been going into the election with an electorate that knew they'd been conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election.
 
Feb 4, 2009
20,368
1,247
126
#5
So how come the current President or current justice or previous justice head never order it?

Are your posts BS and there is nothing to charge Hillary with?

or

Are the previously mentioned people utterly incompetent?
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#6
I'm sure once Slow reads the details he'll be back in here to apologize for spreading a clickbait title that didn't match what actually happened.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,968
126
#7
You should read your own articles rather than just looking at headlines:

"And the Justice Department's assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge, and also that it had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge "

Besides, you should be thrilled they didn't go ahead with a gross negligence charge. If those standards were applied to the current administration Trump and most of the administration would have been removed a long time ago. In fact, if the same standards were applied, the Trump campaign would have been going into the election with an electorate that knew they'd been conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election.

Those transcripts, released by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, appeared to show Page confirming that DOJ officials during the Hillary Clinton email investigation made clear to the FBI that they should not pursue Clinton for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information.

Go figure, the partisan and corrupt DOJ didn't want Hillary charged.
 
Feb 15, 2002
13,678
628
126
#10
Those transcripts, released by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, appeared to show Page confirming that DOJ officials during the Hillary Clinton email investigation made clear to the FBI that they should not pursue Clinton for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information.

Go figure, the partisan and corrupt DOJ didn't want Hillary charged.
Yeah, yeah, derpstate, blah, blah, blah, etc.
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#11
Those transcripts, released by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, appeared to show Page confirming that DOJ officials during the Hillary Clinton email investigation made clear to the FBI that they should not pursue Clinton for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information.

Go figure, the partisan and corrupt DOJ didn't want Hillary charged.
Was it due to corruption or the fact it wasn't a sustainable charge, partly due to it never being invoked before? You said it was corruption. The actual quotes in the articles suggest it wasn't.
 
Nov 4, 2004
24,508
1,551
126
#12
Trumps admin couldn't lock her up, so we get the "Thanks Obama" diversion we've all come to know and love. It's how I prefer to start my day.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,968
126
#13
Yeah, yeah, derpstate, blah, blah, blah, etc.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex...own-on-clinton-email-prosecution-gop-rep-says

Title of story (which I'm told the subjects of the thread must reflect here) -
Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ordered-fbi-not-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton/ -
isa Page: Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gross-negligence-in-2016-and-doj-told-them-no - Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no


The subject quite accurately reflects the news contained in the links.

The Obama-DOJ told the FBI not to pursue charges.
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#14
In fact why did I bother unignoring Slow to see what the thread was about? A basic error on my part as he's always just trolling or simply refuses to accept any evidence that goes against what he wants to be true. I mean, to go ahead and make an argument when your own articles used as evidence demonstrate the opposite. That's just comedy gold. Oh yeah, that's why I unignored him.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,968
126
#15
In fact why did I bother unignoring Slow to see what the thread was about? A basic error on my part as he's always just trolling or simply refuses to accept any evidence that goes against what he wants to be true. I mean, to go ahead and make an argument when your own articles used as evidence demonstrate the opposite. That's just comedy gold. Oh yeah, that's why I unignored him.

I don't agree with you, the news doesn't agree with you, so I must be a troll. Please put me back on ignore, you are too soft and fragile for opinions that don't parallel your own.
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#17
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex...own-on-clinton-email-prosecution-gop-rep-says

Title of story (which I'm told the subjects of the thread must reflect here) -
Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ordered-fbi-not-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton/ -
isa Page: Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gross-negligence-in-2016-and-doj-told-them-no - Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no


The subject quite accurately reflects the news contained in the links.

The Obama-DOJ told the FBI not to pursue charges.
Can you answer the previous question please?

Did the DOJ not want that charge due to corruption or the reason stated, that the charge wasn't sustainable partly due to never having been invoked before? Which one do you believe?
 
Jul 12, 2006
95,196
3,056
136
#18
I don't agree with you, the news doesn't agree with you, so I must be a troll. Please put me back on ignore, you are too soft and fragile for opinions that don't parallel your own.
when you use an actual news source, people might pay attention.
 
Feb 15, 2002
13,678
628
126
#19
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex...own-on-clinton-email-prosecution-gop-rep-says

Title of story (which I'm told the subjects of the thread must reflect here) -
Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ordered-fbi-not-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton/ -
isa Page: Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...gross-negligence-in-2016-and-doj-told-them-no - Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no


The subject quite accurately reflects the news contained in the links.

The Obama-DOJ told the FBI not to pursue charges.
All right-wing links, Brainfart, Faux, etc.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,270
3,716
126
#21
I don't agree with you, the news doesn't agree with you, so I must be a troll. Please put me back on ignore, you are too soft and fragile for opinions that don't parallel your own.
From your own link:

We neither had sufficient evidence to charge gross negligence,
nor had it ever been done, because the Department viewed it as constitutionally vague’ Page told a joint committee investigating the prosecutorial decisions.
lol. Total self ownage, yet again.

You should really read your own links before running here and posting them. Don't you get tired of making Trump supporters look stupid?
 
Jan 1, 2016
87
117
76
#22
I don't agree with you, the news doesn't agree with you, so I must be a troll. Please put me back on ignore, you are too soft and fragile for opinions that don't parallel your own.
The websites (they're not "news", as that would imply significantly greater reliability than they demonstrate) are arguing something that their evidence doesn't support.

Please answer the question:

Did the DOJ not want that charge due to corruption or was it the reason stated in the articles, that the charge wasn't sustainable partly due to never having been invoked before? Which one do you believe?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,148
2,967
126
#23
Buttering the emails. The Trump DoJ was free to charge Clinton, but they didn't do it, either.

What does it mean, Mr Wizard?

It means there's no case to be made that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

Scrutiny from the alternative facts post truth right wing noise machine is another matter entirely.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,968
126
#24
The websites (they're not "news", as that would imply significantly greater reliability than they demonstrate) are arguing something that their evidence doesn't support.

Please answer the question:

Did the DOJ not want that charge due to corruption or was it the reason stated in the articles, that the charge wasn't sustainable partly due to never having been invoked before? Which one do you believe?
If the charge wasn't sustainable, why did they change the language from that that clearly is against the law (gross negligence) to "extremely careless?"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
62,270
3,716
126
#25
Buttering the emails. The Trump DoJ was free to charge Clinton, but they didn't do it, either.

What does it mean, Mr Wizard?

It means there's no case to be made that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

Scrutiny from the alternative facts post truth right wing noise machine is another matter entirely.
It is kind of odd how Clinton was saved from prosecution due to corrupt Obama DOJ officials. Then, when "non-corrupt" Trump officials took over she... still wasn't charged.

Then again Spidey's own links say they did not have sufficient evidence but because he apparently didn't read them we get to laugh and laugh at him yet again.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS