Election 2016
Republicans
Democrats
Ethics
Responses: 5
2
2
0
He says it pretty clear, the document in question was a FBI 302, which is a personal interview/summary of what happened. In other words here-say, one agent's opinion of what he thought he heard. This is exactly why judges will not use anything like this as evidence or proof. Just because something is written in an internal document does not mean it is in any way true or factual. But the State Dept. and the FBI have stated there was no quid pro quo. There isn't anything there people.
(2)
(0)
SPC James Harsh
We know from Comey's testifying for example that the FBI only does interviews in that manner so you are discrediting every single FBI Investigation?
(0)
(0)
SPC James Harsh
Eliciting is a word that comes to mind as far as what may or may not of happened, which for bribery and the likes is a crime 'quid pro quo'. We are familiar with the idea of people getting arrested for soliciting or conversely agree to agreeing to go along with prostitution in a police sting operation without any acts involved and still be charged, that is different but similar.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In 1933 Hermann Göring combed the executive and the judicial branches in Germany into one power, the Gestapo. So now we have a potential presidential candidate with her hooks in the one national policing authority. One particular area of law that is troubling is that of federal election crimes. Federal jurisdiction pertains to three broad categories — campaign finance crimes, voter/ballot fraud, and civil rights violations. Clinton Foundation, dead people voting, shaping evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if we get danger close to seeing something that resembles the Gestapo.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
They Can't Handle the truth...or Reality... If they do the they will meet with an untimely accident...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google