Reply With Quote
you think this whole thing is a set up?
Spin away libs, spin away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us...tion.html?_r=1
Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails
"A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation."
“As the F.B.I.’s report notes,” Mr. Fallon said, “neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”
"According to the F.B.I. do ents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story."
"In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said."
"In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server."
you think this whole thing is a set up?
In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.
Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, also received immunity earlier this year.
Donald Trump’s campaign released a statement about the report, re-upping the call for a special prosecutor.
“The revelation that a second individual was given an immunity deal in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal only underscores the need for a special prosecutor to be appointed,” senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement.
And Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who served as chairman of the House select committee on Benghazi, appeared on Fox News Friday morning, blasting the FBI for what he says were huge mistakes.
“They gave immunity to the very person you would want to prosecute, the person who destroyed emails after there was a subpoena and prosecution order,” Gowdy said of Combetta. “We need to ask the FBI what kinds of immunity did you give? And why did you give it to the triggerman, the guy who actually destroyed government do ents?”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4JnJy2YQf
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Set up is the wrong term. Cover up sure.
The DOJ is pulling strings left and right. They'll be more coming out soon and it will only get worse. Sadly Clinton looks untouchable, especially when backed by Obama's DOJ.
clinton belongs in jail
one person who sent one classified email is in jail for 2 years
she does not even go to trial UNREAL
but she said she didn't know anything about it.
all smoke but there's no fire
sometimes the bad guy doesn't get punished.
if you and the GOP hadn't shot your credibility demonizing Obama and Hilary, mostly outlandishly, for the last eight years, maybe more people would pay attention to this post and ones like it.
what happened to the boy who cried wolf?
so many easy political points could have been scored -- you and the GOP have mostly yourselves to blame that they won't be.
TSA in this thread boils down to this:
I think he's right to be sad. In a normal political landscape, something like this would be disqualifying -- and should be, in my opinion.
That it isn't attests to the weakness of HRC's opponent and the unbelievability of her bug-eyed, spluttering detractors.
Character and demeanor count and on that count, Trump and his supporters lose.
How do Trump's character and demeanor have anything to do with Clinton's actions being disqualifying?
What does any of that have to do with what's actually right and wrong? This sounds like a rapists logic saying "she deserved it for dressing that way".
I see you defending Hilary quite often and you just basically admitted she is a "bad guy".
Trump makes HRC a credible candidate. Against anyone else she wouldn't be.
I'm not a fan, and if I criticize the idiocy of Trump's defenders that's hardly a defense of HRC.
I do think she's a bad guy, and I do think there are a number of things she's done that ought to disqualify her, but next to Trump she looks like a reasonable candidate.
GOP picked the wrong horse against a historically awful nomination by the Dems.
I asked specifically about her actions disqualifying her. In a normal political landscape you said she'd be disqualified. Disqualified for what? Why does her disqualification depend on who she is facing?
last time they granted immunity you said that was going to be critical too
boy who cried wolf
Because one or the other is going to be the next president.
Who is deciding not to disqualify her?
The electorate. Do you seriously not understand WH's point?
Wine is saying that Trump makes Clinton look credible. I get that but that was not what I asked him. I'm waiting for him to clarify what she should be disqualified for and how having Trump as her opponent changes her being disqualified or not disqualified.
In a general presidential election the emails, the optics of pay for play, and her favorabilty numbers would disqualify her as a viable presidential nominee with the electorate. Not so this time around because the Republican Party decided to nominate Donald Trump as their nominee.
To add to what Pusher already pointed out...There isn't a legal reason why she's disqualified if that's what you're asking for, it's her lack of credibility with the electorate that should disqualify her (from winning). Trump's own lack of credibility puts her back in the game and in the lead. Get it?
Because the FBI decided not to refer her criminally, and she didn't withdraw.
Also, because perceptions count as much as -- maybe more than -- facts in political contests. HRC's supporters didn't see the email chicanery and the black cloud of legal hazard over her head as being disqualifying, they nominated her anyway, which de facto qualifies her to run for president. HRC didn't withdraw, like a more decent and ordinary candidate might have, so she didn't disqualify herself, and went on to accept the nomination of her party.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
