FBI reopens investigation into Clinton email use

[Blackjack200]

Anecdotally, yes, at least more likely than people listening to or watching other shows. For instance, I've read the relevant portions of the act and seen some of the e-mails / evidence on other sources / interviews / her comments and she, without a doubt, violated the espionage act.

You're welcome to post that evidence right here.

Levin has a fair amount of call-ins from people referencing other sources and explaining how some of the things they've independently discovered have further supported something he has said, or introduced their take on something, often with some form of corresponding information. Of course, retards call in, too, as with all shows. I would say that Levin's audience is probably the best educated audience out of any audience of any political program on any format because I think that someone listening to Levin is immediately more educated than if they were to spend their time on any other program or show. Largely, this is due to Levin himself encouraging people to look up primary sources, and using direct, sometimes lengthy, audio of what people have actually said. He also goes straight to the horse's mouth very often -- on both sides D or R -- and calls out their bullshit. If you aren't some nutjob radical leftist like some on this forum (or shit, even if you are!), all of his broadcasts are available for free on his website around 20 minutes after they air. Some are better than others, and sometimes his mannerisms are distasteful, but it's, overall, easily the most educational political program around.

If a book lands on the best-seller list and nobody hears it, did it really happen? Mark R. Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America was ranked eighth on the New York Times list this week; it's been on that list for six weeks now, and seems to be leaping off the bookshelves, despite the fact that it concerns constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet it has been reviewed virtually no place and written up by almost no one. True, Charles Lane did a piece about it in the Washington Post a few days ago; he noted that absolutely nobody who writes, talks, or thinks about the high court has even read it. It's selling, it seems, almost entirely due to endorsements by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News.


Men in Black was published by Regnery Publishing—the outfit that brought us Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry last summer. Serious journalists spent serious time debunking the claims set forth in the Swift Boat book, but absolutely no one seems to be taking on Levin. This isn't too surprising: For one thing, there's no election on the line. And for another, no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/04/the_limbaugh_code.single.html

Anyways, I've heard Comey's interview where he declined to press charges (yea, that one on Levin), and it doesn't add up in the slightest. Comey, basically, cites a bunch of evidence clearly outlining valid reasons Hillary should be prosecuted, then says that she didn't have the "intent" to violate the espionage act and that they will not pursue charges. Well, intent isn't the standard; the standard is gross negligence, and people have been convicted and are currently serving time based on this fact. Comey and Lynch have refused to follow the law when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

So, Comey took the opportunity of a decision against recommending charges to air out the "evidence" they had against Clinton.

In an election year.

You really have no idea what the problem with that is? You have to be a complete hack. Even conservatives have spoken out against it.

 

[Jhhnn]

intent isn't the standard; the standard is gross negligence

A standard not judged to have been met by those empowered to make the decision. You know, our best investigators & prosecutors. I doubt they'll change their minds so you might as well get over it & get over yourself while you're at it.

 

[senseamp]

If Comey had proof that Hillary committed a crime and should have been indicted, and the DOJ went against it, he should have resigned in protest.
If he didn't had no proof that Hillary committed a crime, he should not have been damaging her reputation by talking about her case.
What he is doing instead is abusing his official position to blatantly interfere in the election, and dragging the FBI down this slippery slope he got on in July when he ran his mouth instead of running his agency.
My prediction is he will be resigning before the end of the year.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/james-comey-fbi-director-clinton-emails

FBI director James Comey set off a torrent of criticism late last week when he directly inserted himself into the presidential campaign with a vague letter to Congress about the reopening of Clinton email case. His conduct has shocked many observers across the political spectrum, but the only thing truly surprising about this episode is that people are only now realizing how power-hungry and dangerous Comey actually is.

During his stints in the Bush and Obama administration Comey has continually taken authoritarian and factually dubious public stances both at odds with responsible public policy and sometimes the law. The Clinton case is not an aberration, it’s part of a clear pattern.

 

[mrjminer]

You're welcome to post that evidence right here.



If a book lands on the best-seller list and nobody hears it, did it really happen? Mark R. Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America was ranked eighth on the New York Times list this week; it's been on that list for six weeks now, and seems to be leaping off the bookshelves, despite the fact that it concerns constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet it has been reviewed virtually no place and written up by almost no one. True, Charles Lane did a piece about it in the Washington Post a few days ago; he noted that absolutely nobody who writes, talks, or thinks about the high court has even read it. It's selling, it seems, almost entirely due to endorsements by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News.

Men in Black was published by Regnery Publishing—the outfit that brought us Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry last summer. Serious journalists spent serious time debunking the claims set forth in the Swift Boat book, but absolutely no one seems to be taking on Levin. This isn't too surprising: For one thing, there's no election on the line. And for another, no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/04/the_limbaugh_code.single.html



So, Comey took the opportunity of a decision against recommending charges to air out the "evidence" they had against Clinton.

In an election year.

You really have no idea what the problem with that is? You have to be a complete hack. Even conservatives have spoken out against it.

A standard not judged to have been met by those empowered to make the decision. You know, our best investigators & prosecutors. I doubt they'll change their minds so you might as well get over it & get over yourself while you're at it.

You obviously haven't read the relevant sections of the espionage act, evaluated any evidence, or listened to the Comey's audio. All of the information is freely available if you so choose to educate yourself. You could, alternatively, remain inside of your bubble, listening to the sweet whispers of the political indoctrination to which you have been subjected. I forgot to mention before since I was focused on the espionage act, but she's also pretty blatantly guilty of misleading investigators.

Here is the relevant portion of the espionage act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Here is a "supercut" (?) of Comey and Clinton's statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

I'm too lazy to track down Comey's audio by itself, but it shouldn't be too rough to find if you actually cared. I'm pretty sure neither of you two do, though (particularly not nutjob Jhhnn), so this is more for anyone else coming across the thread.

 

[ivwshane]

how about not having the leader of the party not do shit to get investigated? The FBI and law enforcement need to do their job. nobody is above the law including politicians running for office.

Serious question: how many times should Benghazi been investigated?

 

[agent00f]

Anecdotally, yes, at least more likely than people listening to or watching other shows. For instance, I've read the relevant portions of the act and seen some of the e-mails / evidence on other sources / interviews / her comments and she, without a doubt, violated the espionage act. Levin has a fair amount of call-ins from people referencing other sources and explaining how some of the things they've independently discovered have further supported something he has said, or introduced their take on something, often with some form of corresponding information. Of course, retards call in, too, as with all shows. I would say that Levin's audience is probably the best educated audience out of any audience of any political program on any format because I think that someone listening to Levin is immediately more educated than if they were to spend their time on any other program or show. Largely, this is due to Levin himself encouraging people to look up primary sources, and using direct, sometimes lengthy, audio of what people have actually said. He also goes straight to the horse's mouth very often -- on both sides D or R -- and calls out their bullshit. If you aren't some nutjob radical leftist like some on this forum (or shit, even if you are!), all of his broadcasts are available for free on his website around 20 minutes after they air. Some are better than others, and sometimes his mannerisms are distasteful, but it's, overall, easily the most educational political program around.

Literally the first position I found on his wiki is support for constitutional originalism, which is straight up traditionalism/conservatism, and trivially indefensibly given the writers explicitly created a mechanism for change, then changed it 10 times as their first order of business with purposely ambiguous language open to further interpretation. I suppose you can say as a lawyer he can make the best of a shitty case, going to great length to convey conviction and obfuscating the adversarial argument if need be, which is rather different to figuring out the reality of things.

Anyways, I've heard Comey's interview where he declined to press charges (yea, that one on Levin), and it doesn't add up in the slightest. Comey, basically, cites a bunch of evidence clearly outlining valid reasons Hillary should be prosecuted, then says that she didn't have the "intent" to violate the espionage act and that they will not pursue charges. Well, intent isn't the standard; the standard is gross negligence, and people have been convicted and are currently serving time based on this fact. Comey and Lynch have refused to follow the law when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

It's called tossing you guys a bone. He brings up the marginal shit to demonstrate they didn't sit on their ass all day, then justifies the reasons why any charges will fail, which they certainly would outside that motivated thinking bubble for some mickey mouse foul in a large body of work. Evidently that didn't work out for him, so we see plan B here, which did.

You don't seem stupid, and have presumably worked in some professional setting, where this politics happens all around you. Pay heed to it sometime.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm too lazy to track down Comey's audio by itself, but it shouldn't be too rough to find if you actually cared. I'm pretty sure neither of you two do, though (particularly not nutjob Jhhnn), so this is more for anyone else coming across the thread.

I'd venture a guess that it is a lot more than two that do not agree with you.

Commentary: Blame Comey’s moral vanity for dumping us in this newest election mess

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...tm_medium=referral&utm_source=morefromreuters

 

[agent00f]

You obviously haven't read the relevant sections of the espionage act, evaluated any evidence, or listened to the Comey's audio. All of the information is freely available if you so choose to educate yourself. You could, alternatively, remain inside of your bubble, listening to the sweet whispers of the political indoctrination to which you have been subjected. I forgot to mention before since I was focused on the espionage act, but she's also pretty blatantly guilty of misleading investigators.

Here is the relevant portion of the espionage act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Here is a "supercut" (?) of Comey and Clinton's statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

I'm too lazy to track down Comey's audio by itself, but it shouldn't be too rough to find if you actually cared. I'm pretty sure neither of you two do, though (particularly not nutjob Jhhnn), so this is more for anyone else coming across the thread.

So you've been listen to this super educational law show for so long and still believe cases are determined by straight laymen interpretation of statute; really?

 

[Jhhnn]

You obviously haven't read the relevant sections of the espionage act, evaluated any evidence, or listened to the Comey's audio. All of the information is freely available if you so choose to educate yourself. You could, alternatively, remain inside of your bubble, listening to the sweet whispers of the political indoctrination to which you have been subjected. I forgot to mention before since I was focused on the espionage act, but she's also pretty blatantly guilty of misleading investigators.

Here is the relevant portion of the espionage act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Here is a "supercut" (?) of Comey and Clinton's statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

I'm too lazy to track down Comey's audio by itself, but it shouldn't be too rough to find if you actually cared. I'm pretty sure neither of you two do, though (particularly not nutjob Jhhnn), so this is more for anyone else coming across the thread.

Comey understands the term "gross negligence". Had he believed that to be the case, he'd have used that term. He didn't. When he said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case he meant against anybody.

Or it's just part of the larger conspiracy, whatever that great mystery may be. It probably has something to do with polluting our precious bodily fluids, I suspect.

 

[Blackjack200]

You obviously haven't read the relevant sections of the espionage act, evaluated any evidence, or listened to the Comey's audio. All of the information is freely available if you so choose to educate yourself. You could, alternatively, remain inside of your bubble, listening to the sweet whispers of the political indoctrination to which you have been subjected.

This is how you respond to someone asking you to back up your claim? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I forgot to mention before since I was focused on the espionage act, but she's also pretty blatantly guilty of misleading investigators.

Oh, thank god you're available to inform us and adjudicate the case, free of charge.

Here is the relevant portion of the espionage act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Here is a "supercut" (?) of Comey and Clinton's statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

I'm too lazy to track down Comey's audio by itself, but it shouldn't be too rough to find if you actually cared. I'm pretty sure neither of you two nutjobs do, though, so this is more for anyone else coming across the thread.

How the fuck is "Comey's audio" or "supercuts" relevant to anything? Links to evidence please.

 

[mrjminer]

Too many Cooks!

I've wasted enough time today trying to get you radicals to listen to or evaluate any evidence. Maybe tomorrow will be the day you realize that corruption across the highest forms of government is not the government you want to have. Until then, I guess enjoy remaining indoctrinated.

 

[sportage]

I just hope the voters realize what a hack job Comey has pulled. After all, Comey is a republican and who knows what is really going on behind the scenes with Comey and his fellow republicans supporting Trump.
But if the voters pay attention then Hillary will have no problem.
It's just that far too often people get their news from forwarding junk emails and internet noise, and that would be bad news for Clinton.
Frankly, I do believe most voters are just not smart enough to pay attention to the facts. My proof? They reelected GW Bush, and got Trump thru the primaries.
Lets face it, people are basically idiots.

 

[agent00f]

Too many Cooks!

I've wasted enough time today trying to get you radicals to listen to or evaluate any evidence. Maybe tomorrow will be the day you realize that corruption across the highest forms of government is not the government you want to have. Until then, I guess enjoy remaining indoctrinated.

Hmm, so people who don't agree with your lawyer's case are radicals who can't evaluate evidence. Consider looking up and pondering how arguments in an adversarial system works.

 

[trenchfoot]

Serious question: how many times should Benghazi been investigated?

It's impossible to reply with a serious answer simply because as we all well know with certainty, the real reasons for investigating it so many times didn't have anything to do with finding out what actually happened and applying corrective preventive measures.

IMO, the only way to answer your question is to show disgust and anger at the wasted millions of $$$ and the endless hours of wasted time the Repub controlled House and Senate spent on this fruitless backfired witch hunt of theirs.

 

[Blackjack200]

Too many Cooks!

I've wasted enough time today trying to get you radicals to listen to or evaluate any evidence.

 

[brycejones]

Serious question: how many times should Benghazi been investigated?

Has Hillary been arrested for treason yet? Keep investigating until that happens. /s

 

[OutHouse]

If he didn't had no proof that Hillary committed a crime, he should not have been damaging her reputation by talking about her case.

guess you forgot about this?

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information

 

[Blackjack200]

Evidence is proof?

 

[Jhhnn]

Too many Cooks!

I've wasted enough time today trying to get you radicals to listen to or evaluate any evidence. Maybe tomorrow will be the day you realize that corruption across the highest forms of government is not the government you want to have. Until then, I guess enjoy remaining indoctrinated.

Come back when you get the secret decoder ring figured out. Might want to re-calibrate your bullshit detector at the same time.

 

[senseamp]

guess you forgot about this?

If there is evidence, why didn't he recommend indictment? Is he a coward or a liar?

 

[zinfamous]

41 pages on this topic and the investigation still isn't reopened. Lot of gullible idiots in this country.

a metric shit ton of idiots, in fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

guess you forgot about this?

What part of this do you fail to comprehend?

our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

Do you need a translator?

 

[OutHouse]

What part of this do you fail to comprehend?



Do you need a translator?

go smoke some sour diesel you waste of flesh.

 

[agent00f]

go smoke some sour diesel you waste of flesh.

Are you going to report yourself for this?

 

[ivwshane]

go smoke some sour diesel you waste of flesh.

Does this mean you won't be answering my serious question?