Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All

.
This case has unusual precedents. Comey is on record explaining why Hillary and Huma Abedin should not be charged IN PAINSTAKING DETAIL.

In fact, Comey said, in both cases, Criminal Intent was necessary to be charged.

Comey, for Huma too, goes down the list of violations - and then says there was no Criminal Intent there, so there wouldn’t be any charges.

Cases usually have Judicial Rulings as precedents, but this case is highly unusual because the charging decisions and the basis behind those non-charges have been delineated under oath to Congress. And the Law hasn’t changed.

I think they just wanted in there, and they also got FISA Surveillance approved like the old days.

.


25 posted on 08/26/2022 8:25:49 PM PDT by AnthonySoprano (Lindsey Graham: How can anyone be Mad at Joe Biden?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: AnthonySoprano

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1o6atwZUcI&t=4s

“Not for them a judge or jury,
Not for them a crime at all,
Being Irish means they’re guilty,
So they’re guilty, one and all.
Round the world,
The truth will echo,
Cromwell’s men are here again!
England’s name again is sullied,
In the name of honest men.


26 posted on 08/26/2022 8:39:11 PM PDT by quikstrike98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: AnthonySoprano

Comey was wrong, by the way. The statute does not require intent.


31 posted on 08/27/2022 4:01:34 AM PDT by MortMan (You better bring yours, when you come to take mine. - Creed Fisher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson