No agent working on the case agreed with Comey. Wrong or the way things work?

[whirlingmerc]

Seems that for no other reason that lying to the American people, there is a serious problem here.
"...career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged."


“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html

 

[Wirey]

So a source who can't be named is claiming something no one else can verify? That's not news, it's innuendo, and Fox should be ashamed. If there was that much conflict within the department about a political decision to hide a crime they should be able to verify it independently. And you should be able to puzzle that out without me mentioning it.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think it's sad if as they say the decision was top down and came from the White House.

The claim from Comey was that 'no attorney in the country would procecute'

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Maybe the case should have been turned over to the attorneys to see if they would or would not prosecute.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Faux news strikes again... the lies spread about Clinton are amazing in their error, in their motive and their tenacity. No other single person has ever been scrutinized this intensely, been exonerated and then had to still deal with the innuendo. She has been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't stop the unreasonable from asserting her guilt.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I should have said procecutors... but pretty much the same

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe the case should have been turned over to the attorneys to see if they would or would not prosecute.

News flash: it was turned over and they agreed with the FBI. It's time to call off the anti-Clinton jihad.

 

[esmith]

News flash: it was turned over and they agreed with the FBI. It's time to call off the anti-Clinton jihad.

News flash: It was NOT turned over to DOJ attorneys. Don't know where you got the information that it was. Care to revel your sources?

 

[metis]

Fox "News" is not a news channel but a right-wing propaganda-channel, so maybe someone can post a serious source instead?

 

[Acim]

So a source who can't be named is claiming something no one else can verify?

What is the something you are stating is claimed, but not verified. The article verifies/backs up the assertion "The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information" with at least 5 other people cited in the article. One of those is unnamed. I think in every story that deals with anonymous source, this is how the article is written.

If there was that much conflict within the department about a political decision to hide a crime they should be able to verify it independently. And you should be able to puzzle that out without me mentioning it.

How would that work? Walk me/us through on how anyone could investigate this if POTUS. leader of DOJ and leader of FBI are all looking for an acquittal.

 

[Acim]

It's time to call off the anti-Clinton jihad.

Nope, just getting started.

 

[Acim]

Fox "News" is not a news channel but a right-wing propaganda-channel, so maybe someone can post a serious source instead?

Like the ones that are in cahoots with HRC campaign?

 

[Wirey]

What is the something you are stating is claimed, but not verified. The article verifies/backs up the assertion "The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information" with at least 5 other people cited in the article. One of those is unnamed. I think in every story that deals with anonymous source, this is how the article is written.



How would that work? Walk me/us through on how anyone could investigate this if POTUS. leader of DOJ and leader of FBI are all looking for an acquittal.

Okay, the walk through:

You have let's say 50 people who's lives are devoted to bringing criminals to justice. A governmental decision robs them of a chance to stop a deliberate criminal from getting away with it in a climate where telling the truth would make them instant national celebrities and guarantee them work in any number of law firms that pay much, much more than they're making now. In a fit of passion, they mention, in passing, off the record, that something is up, but because they are so ideologically driven they won't put their name on it and become the heros we all know they would be. What would happen right now if an FBI official came out and said "We wanted to charge Hillary but Obama wouldn't let us?" Or:

They agreed with the decision. Fox found one virulent little pus bag who would lie, off the record of course, to stir up crap about Obama and Hillary, and that's news.

Which one would a rational person believe to be true?

 

[Acim]

Okay, the walk through:

You have let's say 50 people who's lives are devoted to bringing criminals to justice. A governmental decision robs them of a chance to stop a deliberate criminal from getting away with it in a climate where telling the truth would make them instant national celebrities and guarantee them work in any number of law firms that pay much, much more than they're making now. In a fit of passion, they mention, in passing, off the record, that something is up, but because they are so ideologically driven they won't put their name on it and become the heros we all know they would be. What would happen right now if an FBI official came out and said "We wanted to charge Hillary but Obama wouldn't let us?" Or:

They agreed with the decision. Fox found one virulent little pus bag who would lie, off the record of course, to stir up crap about Obama and Hillary, and that's news.

Which one would a rational person believe to be true?

The walk through is filled with a bunch that is debatable, arguably all of it.

Fox found at least 5 people for the article. I'm guessing Fox found more that didn't want to go on the record.

 

[metis]

Like the ones that are in cahoots with HRC campaign?

I don't care if they are or not as I don't watch Fox nor take them seriously.

 

[Wirey]

The walk through is filled with a bunch that is debatable, arguably all of it.

Fox found at least 5 people for the article. I'm guessing Fox found more that didn't want to go on the record.

Okay, the FBI is on Hillary's side. Why? So the Senate can cut their funding?

 

[Acim]

I don't care if they are or not as I don't watch Fox nor take them seriously.

It's humorous that you take the other ones seriously, especially if Fox reports the exact same news.

I think it is clear to all, in 2016, that news is biased and has been for a long while. What gets reported has less of a chance for bias. Commentary (and who is chosen for quotes) is where the bias is impossible to miss, unless you are under 10 years old.

Perhaps hard to imagine, but some of us don't like news filtered through the idea of Camp Clinton can't do (much) wrong, and liberal spin is the only way to properly understand things.

It is nice knowing Fox News is #1 and has been for like 10 years straight.

 

[Acim]

Okay, the FBI is on Hillary's side. Why? So the Senate can cut their funding?

The article explains why the FBI's Comey is on Hillary's side.

Given the stuff Wikileaks is conveying right about now, I think it is plausibly more nefarious than what the article is suggesting as why side with Hillary on this.

 

[Wirey]

The article explains why the FBI's Comey is on Hillary's side.

Given the stuff Wikileaks is conveying right about now, I think it is plausibly more nefarious than what the article is suggesting as why side with Hillary on this.

I have to disagree. The old 'follow the money' line seems pertinent. The FBI's budget must be approved by the Republican controlled Senate, and if Comey made a political decision to harm the Republicans they would crush him, and he knows it. The decision was obviously made because, despite Hillary's stupidity, there was no overt criminal act.

 

[metis]

It's humorous that you take the other ones seriously, especially if Fox reports the exact same news.

I think it is clear to all, in 2016, that news is biased and has been for a long while. What gets reported has less of a chance for bias. Commentary (and who is chosen for quotes) is where the bias is impossible to miss, unless you are under 10 years old.

Perhaps hard to imagine, but some of us don't like news filtered through the idea of Camp Clinton can't do (much) wrong, and liberal spin is the only way to properly understand things.

It is nice knowing Fox News is #1 and has been for like 10 years straight.

I don't watch propaganda channels but if that's what floats your boat, I guess that's just all fine & dandy. This is also the reason you don't ever see me quoting MSNBC.

Instead, I get my news from numerous sources, both internet and t.v. Nor do I take anything controversial at face value, which is why I use Google a lot. So, it's pretty clear which of us is more subject to propaganda versus the other.

BTW, Fox is only #1 with cable news, plus it's the only channel that caters to the lunatic-fringe on the right.