I posted this thread 2x a few days ago, it didn't get a single reply...

I posted this thread 2x a few days ago, it didn't get a single reply. but /pol seems active right now so I will try again.

Alright Sup Forums I have a theory.

I am sure we have all heard about the AG Loretta Lynch (((chance))) meeting with Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton had just finished playing golf in Arizona during the summer (100+ degrees), when he (((happened))) to run into his good friend AG Loretta Lynch at the airport. They briefly discussed their children, among other goy things. just goy things though, nothing regarding Hillary's prosecution. promise, fellow goy.

media gets fired up, because this is obviously a crock of shit. If the past has taught us one thing, it's that the (((Clintons))) are professional liars. such an obvious lie seems out of character, does it not?

sometime around the same time, FBI director Comey announced no further investigation into or prosecution for the Shillary emails would occur.

from this: washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-scheduled-to-testify-before-house-judiciary-committee-on-clinton-email-investigation/2016/07/11/2dfb746c-479e-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html

>Soon after the airplane meeting was reported, Lynch announced that she would accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and FBI agents looking into Clinton’s email use in a bid to quell concerns that politics were influencing the investigation. When Comey announced he was recommending no charges be filed, he said he was doing so without having told the attorney general beforehand.

>she would accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and FBI agents looking into Clinton’s email use in a bid to quell concerns that politics were influencing the investigation

>Comey announced he was recommending no charges be filed, he said he was doing so without having told the attorney general beforehand

Other urls found in this thread:

latimes.com/nation/la-na-comey-testimony-clinton-email-20160707-snap-story.html
thehill.com/policy/national-security/286488-read-fbi-directors-statement-on-hillary-clinton-email-investigation
blog.dilbert.com/post/147045002381/the-fbi-credibility-and-government
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

AG is higher than FBI director in DOJ chain of command. It shouldn't matter what Comey recommends, she can ultimately do what she likes. If anything, for a case of this magnitude, the AG would step in and demand FBI pursue.

However, If Trump gets elected, he's said he will further Hillary's prosecution. Any investigation into the past investigation would undoubtedly uncover massive amounts of evidence of corruption, Comey has already confirmed this. Blatant disregard of such evidence would be grounds for some sort of misconduct charge of your own, especially at those levels of government.

Obviously LL’s not going to act against the (((Clintons))) so pursuing the investigation is a non-possibility, but had she declined pursuing the investigation, she could be held liable in the future, under Trump. By deliberately making public her meeting with Bill Clinton, LL tainted her ability to guarantee politics weren't influencing the situation.

In order to ensure "justice", she removed herself from the situation, and placed the total responsibility on Comey. That's what an honest person would do, right?

from this: latimes.com/nation/la-na-comey-testimony-clinton-email-20160707-snap-story.html

>The FBI director grew a bit stern and said he hoped Mica’s constituents would “look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say: I did not coordinate that with anyone — the White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath; I stand by that. There was no coordination.”

from this (the Hill herself): thehill.com/policy/national-security/286488-read-fbi-directors-statement-on-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

>This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the department of justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

Blah, blah, blah (you should read it yourself though)

>It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as 'personal' by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014

>the lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead they relied on header information

> it is also likely that there are other work related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere...the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery

> to be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

and to top it off...his final sentence, the Absolute Ultimate redpill:

>I couldn't be prouder to be a part of this organization

so basically, he admits that this investigation is abnormal, and he will go out of his way to explain it to the american people. He then proceeds to tell use that Hillary's lawyers had access to the emails before the FBI, in order to 'sort' them. A process in which they indiscriminately deleted ones deemed to be 'personal', without actually reading them. They then wiped their devices, at which point the FBI investigation was allowed to proceed.

Long story short, Comey feels seriously threatened by the (((Clintons))).

...

is this thread being slided? I just find it weird you are the only reply. normally when I post a thread there is some discussion, even if it's criticism

...

CRIKEY

>He then proceeds to tell use that Hillary's lawyers had access to the emails before the FBI, in order to 'sort' them. A process in which they indiscriminately deleted ones deemed to be 'personal', without actually reading them. They then wiped their devices, at which point the FBI investigation was allowed to proceed.
How the fuck did that happen? Is it normal in america? Serious question

No, it is VERY abnormal.

It'd be like, getting arrested while robbing a bank, but your attorneys going in to 'sort' the crime scene before the investigators get to

also props to poland for calling out the Jew's lies a few days back.

Can you sumarise this thesis into a few short lines?

>How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.

>That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.

>He took the bullet.

>Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.

>Comey might have saved the country. He sacrificed his reputation and his career to keep the nation’s government credible.

>It was the right decision.

>Comey is a hero.

blog.dilbert.com/post/147045002381/the-fbi-credibility-and-government

your post hurt my brain.

it doesn't matter if youre in the midst of a presidential campaign when you get indicted. there's this thing called 'Rule of Law' that reaffirms this sentiment

like holy fuck your stupidity blows me away

"Hey, FBI. I know, I know, I'm guilty as fuck. Would you mind rescheduling/postponing my indictment until it's more convenient for me?"

You really think the shadow government would let the FBI tamper with the hundreds of years old game of red vs. blue?

Don't kid yourselves

I don't know who is going to win, but I know it has all been decided. Why bother yourself about these machinations? They are all for show.

thats my point, this is all damage control. without the LL/BC meeting, if Comey decided not to indict, people would demand the attorney general require indication. but LL can't be expected to do anything, because she's distanced herself from the case. and FBI already said no charges should be brought.

short of either of them resigning or a Trump presidency, it will be essentially impossible to reopen and Shillary gets off scot-free

>murder a mother and rape a child
>police show up at my door
>"wait guys I'm running for president! It wouldn't be very credible if my opponent won by me getting executed for felony charges!"
>police quickly apologize and leave

Why are you putting Jew echos around regular words? Is the word "chance" somehow Jewish?

yes, exactly. Chance the Jew.

>short of either of them resigning or a Trump presidency, it will be essentially impossible to reopen and Shillary gets off scot-free
Members of congress are still attempting to chase perjury charges (she lied about the transmission of classified emails, about providing all of them to the FBI, and how many devices she used the server through, all under oath) but I have no idea what progress has been made on those

Perjury is notoriously difficult to prosecute, so even if they were its unlikely it would result in anything.

contrary to the mishandling charges, which she was guilty of, clear as day.

>Perjury is notoriously difficult to prosecute
Can you elaborate on this? It doesn't seem like there's much of an argument against her lying when the FBI has explicitly stated three major, related facts that she stated under oath

they have to prove that you KNEW you were lying, and did it deliberately in orto deceive.

there have been only 5 perjury convictions since the early 1900s. 2 for the watergate scandal, 1 was related to Iran-Contra

they have to prove you KNEW you were lying, and did deliberately it in order to deceive

there have only been like 5 perjury cases in the past century, 2 during watergate, another during Iran-Contra. unsure about the other 2

For Hillary not to know she was lying she would have to
1) Not realize that the ~100 classified emails she sent we're classified, in which case she looks foolish
2) Not know she was connected to her own private server when using her own private devices
3) Not know she didn't send the FBI all of her emails (which she can blame on her lawyers who she had go through the emails and decide whether they were work-related or not by the subject line alone)

3 would be hard to stick on her but 1 is the whole point of the case and 2 makes her look worse

she already looks foolish...if anything that helps her defense massively.

I don't know what you are talking about with the second.

anyway, you just proved my point. perjury cases are hard to prove. mishandling of classified info...not so much, as she's very clearly guilty of that.