While speaking to reporters, and again at a campaign stop, HRC smugly urged the FBI to release the new emails as soon as possible. HRC claims that the people have a right to know.
Last night I was watching MSNBC and all their usual suspects were trying to convince their viewers that the new evidence was no big deal. They yucked it up, and repeatedly replayed video of Hillary saying that the emails should be released immediately.
I'm sure a good majority of their viewers, similar to some on this forum, will point to HRC's "I have nothing to hide" stance as a sign of innocence.
Of course, HRC and the media shills know all too well that because it is an ongoing investigation, the FBI can not release any information.
I have to give credit where credit is due ... the Clinton machine, complete with shills in the media, FBI, DOJ, White House, and foreign countries, is certainly well oiled
bigreds daddy
0
While speaking to reporters, and again at a campaign stop, HRC smugly urged the FBI to release the new emails as soon as possible. HRC claims that the people have a right to know.
Last night I was watching MSNBC and all their usual suspects were trying to convince their viewers that the new evidence was no big deal. They yucked it up, and repeatedly replayed video of Hillary saying that the emails should be released immediately.
I'm sure a good majority of their viewers, similar to some on this forum, will point to HRC's "I have nothing to hide" stance as a sign of innocence.
Of course, HRC and the media shills know all too well that because it is an ongoing investigation, the FBI can not release any information.
I have to give credit where credit is due ... the Clinton machine, complete with shills in the media, FBI, DOJ, White House, and foreign countries, is certainly well oiled
the fbi can really do whatever they want. they could release the emails if they wanted to, but they very rarely do that. however, they practiaclly never give press conferences like the one comey gave initially and almost never send letters like the one he sent yesterday so who knows.
if you want to be objective about this news yesterday, it is essentially no more or less than: we got some new emails; we're going to read them.
0
the fbi can really do whatever they want. they could release the emails if they wanted to, but they very rarely do that. however, they practiaclly never give press conferences like the one comey gave initially and almost never send letters like the one he sent yesterday so who knows.
if you want to be objective about this news yesterday, it is essentially no more or less than: we got some new emails; we're going to read them.
another way to evaluate this, objectively, is if the republicans think there is anything at all to these new emails, they'll bring comey back before congress for more questioning. that would clearly be the most strategic way for them to handle it as it would keep it in the news and expose any damaging email issues, if there are any.
0
another way to evaluate this, objectively, is if the republicans think there is anything at all to these new emails, they'll bring comey back before congress for more questioning. that would clearly be the most strategic way for them to handle it as it would keep it in the news and expose any damaging email issues, if there are any.
To my knowledge, which I admit is limited at times, Comey was brought before congress AFTER he closed the original investigation.
He is now in the middle of an investigation, so I do not believe that congress could/would call him in for questions.
I have watched the left-leaning media repeatedly downplay the FBI's recent move through spin and falsehoods.
My personal opinion is that if the FBI uncovered nothing new, or nothing significant, they never would have taken the extraordinary step of releasing the info that they did.
With that said, HRC should still win the election ... but if you can get "will be impeached" at a reasonable price you should pound that thing like Scal handling his weenie on a Saturday night
bigreds daddy
0
CD, I disagree.
To my knowledge, which I admit is limited at times, Comey was brought before congress AFTER he closed the original investigation.
He is now in the middle of an investigation, so I do not believe that congress could/would call him in for questions.
I have watched the left-leaning media repeatedly downplay the FBI's recent move through spin and falsehoods.
My personal opinion is that if the FBI uncovered nothing new, or nothing significant, they never would have taken the extraordinary step of releasing the info that they did.
With that said, HRC should still win the election ... but if you can get "will be impeached" at a reasonable price you should pound that thing like Scal handling his weenie on a Saturday night
To my knowledge, which I admit is limited at times, Comey was brought before congress AFTER he closed the original investigation.
He is now in the middle of an investigation, so I do not believe that congress could/would call him in for questions.
I have watched the left-leaning media repeatedly downplay the FBI's recent move through spin and falsehoods.
My personal opinion is that if the FBI uncovered nothing new, or nothing significant, they never would have taken the extraordinary step of releasing the info that they did.
With that said, HRC should still win the election ... but if you can get "will be impeached" at a reasonable price you should pound that thing like Scal handling his weenie on a Saturday night
it really doesn't work that way. fbi investigations aren't things that are formally closed, like an actual criminal case that has been charged is. it's more just whether they are doing something or they aren't doing anything and if they go a certain amount of time without doing anything, it dies a quiet death and usually no one is even notified. the better term would be whether it's active or inactive.
congress can call comey in at any time. he could try to refuse to answer and cite an ongoing investigation but i'm not sure that's a legal basis to refuse to answer, especially since he's already taken the very odd step of talking about it initially
there is actually a legal and practical basis for congress to bring comey in if they thought there was something. when comey testified last time, he said they have closed the investigation, which again, isn't a formal status but just saying they were done working on it and have come to a conclusion bout hillary. this letter indicates that something has changed and congress does have a right to bring him back in and find out why and in what way his prior sworn testimony needs to be supplemented.
i imagine people will read a lot of garbage about this and much of it will be garbage.
i'm no expert on congress but i've been dealing with the fbi and the doj for a long time and i do know how they work.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
CD, I disagree.
To my knowledge, which I admit is limited at times, Comey was brought before congress AFTER he closed the original investigation.
He is now in the middle of an investigation, so I do not believe that congress could/would call him in for questions.
I have watched the left-leaning media repeatedly downplay the FBI's recent move through spin and falsehoods.
My personal opinion is that if the FBI uncovered nothing new, or nothing significant, they never would have taken the extraordinary step of releasing the info that they did.
With that said, HRC should still win the election ... but if you can get "will be impeached" at a reasonable price you should pound that thing like Scal handling his weenie on a Saturday night
it really doesn't work that way. fbi investigations aren't things that are formally closed, like an actual criminal case that has been charged is. it's more just whether they are doing something or they aren't doing anything and if they go a certain amount of time without doing anything, it dies a quiet death and usually no one is even notified. the better term would be whether it's active or inactive.
congress can call comey in at any time. he could try to refuse to answer and cite an ongoing investigation but i'm not sure that's a legal basis to refuse to answer, especially since he's already taken the very odd step of talking about it initially
there is actually a legal and practical basis for congress to bring comey in if they thought there was something. when comey testified last time, he said they have closed the investigation, which again, isn't a formal status but just saying they were done working on it and have come to a conclusion bout hillary. this letter indicates that something has changed and congress does have a right to bring him back in and find out why and in what way his prior sworn testimony needs to be supplemented.
i imagine people will read a lot of garbage about this and much of it will be garbage.
i'm no expert on congress but i've been dealing with the fbi and the doj for a long time and i do know how they work.
but you are right, while an investigation is technically active, congress would not call in a member of the fbi to talk about it. but not much that the fbi or congress has done in this ever happens and since they are already down this road, it wouldn't be anything different to get some answers under oath since things ave changed from comey's original sworn testimony
0
but you are right, while an investigation is technically active, congress would not call in a member of the fbi to talk about it. but not much that the fbi or congress has done in this ever happens and since they are already down this road, it wouldn't be anything different to get some answers under oath since things ave changed from comey's original sworn testimony
With the exception if zelo, who is clearly out of his mind, I believe that most within this forum do not tout Trump so much as they simply bash Hillary.
Your comment about both candidates hiding skeletons might be true, but HRC's skeleton is the size of a tyrannosaurus rex, while Trump's is that of a flea in comparison.
Trump is a lot of things, most of them negative, but when it comes to being corrupt Hillary wins in a first round knock out
A few things..
First, you obviously are not really interested in discussing things with me, so how about you not reply to my messages and stick with what you are good at, insults and jabs.
Next, you are very close to the line of unacceptable posting with the comments you made to me as quoted above. You constantly make replies with insults unrelated to any of the topic and it is obvious you really are not able to reply to me in any sort of respectful way...so spare us both and skip a general reply to me in the future.
My point was that trying to elevate a pile of garbage (Trump) by making the other pile of garbage look worse is moronic..why even attempt to lipstick Trump when anyone who cares to research a LITTLE can see that Trump is the worst candidate the RNC has ever slopped forward, it isnt even close.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
What has you so upset, Wally?
You weren't sexting with Weiner, were you?
With the exception if zelo, who is clearly out of his mind, I believe that most within this forum do not tout Trump so much as they simply bash Hillary.
Your comment about both candidates hiding skeletons might be true, but HRC's skeleton is the size of a tyrannosaurus rex, while Trump's is that of a flea in comparison.
Trump is a lot of things, most of them negative, but when it comes to being corrupt Hillary wins in a first round knock out
A few things..
First, you obviously are not really interested in discussing things with me, so how about you not reply to my messages and stick with what you are good at, insults and jabs.
Next, you are very close to the line of unacceptable posting with the comments you made to me as quoted above. You constantly make replies with insults unrelated to any of the topic and it is obvious you really are not able to reply to me in any sort of respectful way...so spare us both and skip a general reply to me in the future.
My point was that trying to elevate a pile of garbage (Trump) by making the other pile of garbage look worse is moronic..why even attempt to lipstick Trump when anyone who cares to research a LITTLE can see that Trump is the worst candidate the RNC has ever slopped forward, it isnt even close.
I suspect some Republicans have been pressuring Comey to conduct a deeper inquiry into the e-mails or at least to consider the case against Hillary again. I only think that's possible because so little was really provided to the public about the details that we're supposed to consider pertinent. It looks like a letter to cast doubt other than really substantiate anything. Believe me, I'm a skeptic at heart and I need to be convinced with actual evidence, but I accept facts when they're truly presented.
If Hillary really had classified information and was possibly hacked or attempted malfeasance, then charge her and prove she conclusively did so. I highly doubt that this is suddenly going to change everything. I don't really think it will in terms of voting either. Wouldn't most of you agree that people already made a determination as to how they felt about the e-mails and how they were going to vote consequently?
0
I suspect some Republicans have been pressuring Comey to conduct a deeper inquiry into the e-mails or at least to consider the case against Hillary again. I only think that's possible because so little was really provided to the public about the details that we're supposed to consider pertinent. It looks like a letter to cast doubt other than really substantiate anything. Believe me, I'm a skeptic at heart and I need to be convinced with actual evidence, but I accept facts when they're truly presented.
If Hillary really had classified information and was possibly hacked or attempted malfeasance, then charge her and prove she conclusively did so. I highly doubt that this is suddenly going to change everything. I don't really think it will in terms of voting either. Wouldn't most of you agree that people already made a determination as to how they felt about the e-mails and how they were going to vote consequently?
looks like hugh may not be available for a while to respond.
i would agree that most people have completely digested this issue by now.
but the interesting thing is that it seems like what comey did would piss off both sides.
if tyou are for trump, you might be happy that the letter brings this issue back but the letter really doesn't say much of anything so i doubt anyone is changing their minds based on that letter. so trump people probably want to know what the fbi has in case it is something that is important that could get some traction, rather than a vague letter.
hillary people obviously aren't happy to be talking about this again and also want to see what the fbi has so they can move on if it's nothing or attack it if it's something.
for now, it's really just noise that doesn't seem to do much for either side.
0
looks like hugh may not be available for a while to respond.
i would agree that most people have completely digested this issue by now.
but the interesting thing is that it seems like what comey did would piss off both sides.
if tyou are for trump, you might be happy that the letter brings this issue back but the letter really doesn't say much of anything so i doubt anyone is changing their minds based on that letter. so trump people probably want to know what the fbi has in case it is something that is important that could get some traction, rather than a vague letter.
hillary people obviously aren't happy to be talking about this again and also want to see what the fbi has so they can move on if it's nothing or attack it if it's something.
for now, it's really just noise that doesn't seem to do much for either side.
Over the years, investigations had had little impact on Clinton's race to the presidency. No surprise if she is eventually proven innocent again. She leads by wide margins in all major national polls just days before the election.
Jimmy Carter was up 4% with a week to go in 1980 and Ronald Reagan wiped the Whitehouse floor with him. I understand that your probably 25 years old and your posts certainly show it. And fyi, she was never proven innocent of anything, she's been lucky thus far that the Executive/Judicial branches of government which are supposed to be separate have merged under this corrupt Administration.
First with Eric Holder and then replaced with Loretta Lynch. If you need proof, was anyone ever held accountable for sending 2,000 assault rifles into a foreign country that has very strict gun laws? How about the IRS scandal? Has there been a court marshal of "Bowe" Bergdahl", the traitor that Obama decided to trade 5 Taliban Commanders for? Didn't think so either. No one is ever guilty of anything in Obama's world...
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Over the years, investigations had had little impact on Clinton's race to the presidency. No surprise if she is eventually proven innocent again. She leads by wide margins in all major national polls just days before the election.
Jimmy Carter was up 4% with a week to go in 1980 and Ronald Reagan wiped the Whitehouse floor with him. I understand that your probably 25 years old and your posts certainly show it. And fyi, she was never proven innocent of anything, she's been lucky thus far that the Executive/Judicial branches of government which are supposed to be separate have merged under this corrupt Administration.
First with Eric Holder and then replaced with Loretta Lynch. If you need proof, was anyone ever held accountable for sending 2,000 assault rifles into a foreign country that has very strict gun laws? How about the IRS scandal? Has there been a court marshal of "Bowe" Bergdahl", the traitor that Obama decided to trade 5 Taliban Commanders for? Didn't think so either. No one is ever guilty of anything in Obama's world...
One sided nonsense like this is pathetic...of course everyones favorite cut and paste genius doesnt remember to remove the "CLICK HERE" part of his cut and paste masterpiece.
Neither of these two are worth a crap, I dont get how you Trump fans (or anti Clinton reflex voters) can seriously rationalize a vote for a schmuck like Trump off the back of this snoozing stuff.
Both candidates are hiding skeletons, both are garbage..I see no value in trying to elevate one pile of trash off the trash of another.
What makes me nearly as sick as the nonstop yucck that zelo throws up here is people seriously trying to cheerlead for Trump, its blind moronic silliness.
I respect people who will come out and say "Trump to me is the lesser of two evils" rather than slop like "I cannot wait for change with Trump" or the even sillier "Our constitution is held together with a thread and the Supreme Court will be polluted if Hillary is elected"....that makes me laugh really.
The decision makers and the power players calling the shots in politics will be neither of Trump or Clinton...wisen up people and quit being simpleton idiots.
Huma Mahmood Abedin Just FLIPPED Hillary Clinton GRILLED In TEARS[NEW DETAILS]!!!!!
One sided nonsense like this is pathetic...of course everyones favorite cut and paste genius doesnt remember to remove the "CLICK HERE" part of his cut and paste masterpiece.
Neither of these two are worth a crap, I dont get how you Trump fans (or anti Clinton reflex voters) can seriously rationalize a vote for a schmuck like Trump off the back of this snoozing stuff.
Both candidates are hiding skeletons, both are garbage..I see no value in trying to elevate one pile of trash off the trash of another.
What makes me nearly as sick as the nonstop yucck that zelo throws up here is people seriously trying to cheerlead for Trump, its blind moronic silliness.
I respect people who will come out and say "Trump to me is the lesser of two evils" rather than slop like "I cannot wait for change with Trump" or the even sillier "Our constitution is held together with a thread and the Supreme Court will be polluted if Hillary is elected"....that makes me laugh really.
The decision makers and the power players calling the shots in politics will be neither of Trump or Clinton...wisen up people and quit being simpleton idiots.
Huma Mahmood Abedin Just FLIPPED Hillary Clinton GRILLED In TEARS[NEW DETAILS]!!!!!
Jimmy Carter was up 4% with a week to go in 1980 and Ronald Reagan wiped the Whitehouse floor with him. She was never proven innocent of anything, she's been lucky thus far that the Executive/Judicial branches of government which are supposed to be separate have merged under this corrupt Administration.
Actually, Reagan was leading in polls months before the election. ]Trump is no Reagan and 2016 is not 1980. US demographics have changed to favor democrats now and in the future. Besides, longshot miracles rarely happen. Historically, the candidate leading in polls in final month almost always win Presidential election.
Corruption allegations are mostly false. Justice department is non-partisan, independent and professional. For 25 years, Clinton scandals are mostly non-sense and manufactured by GOP smear campaign. Clinton is the only person that stands in their way in 2016. Desperate GOP can't beat her and they know it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
Jimmy Carter was up 4% with a week to go in 1980 and Ronald Reagan wiped the Whitehouse floor with him. She was never proven innocent of anything, she's been lucky thus far that the Executive/Judicial branches of government which are supposed to be separate have merged under this corrupt Administration.
Actually, Reagan was leading in polls months before the election. ]Trump is no Reagan and 2016 is not 1980. US demographics have changed to favor democrats now and in the future. Besides, longshot miracles rarely happen. Historically, the candidate leading in polls in final month almost always win Presidential election.
Corruption allegations are mostly false. Justice department is non-partisan, independent and professional. For 25 years, Clinton scandals are mostly non-sense and manufactured by GOP smear campaign. Clinton is the only person that stands in their way in 2016. Desperate GOP can't beat her and they know it.
Really? Check your data. Carter was ahead of Reagan 1 week before election
https://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/
Are you really serious that this woman isn't the most corrupt person to ever run for office? Really? Justice department is owned by King Obama and that puppet Lynch who came after the previous puppet Holder. She's a loser and hopefully soon to be wearing orange pants suits daily. Do you pay attention to what's coming out about your beloved party everyday? How can you ignore the scandals that have followed this family for 30 years? The fix was in for her from the beginning versus Bernie Sanders. The party didn't even bother putting any real competition up against her, she was the "chosen one".
The Clinton Foundation? Anthony Wiener will go down as the person responsible for finally bringing her down. I agree Trump is no Reagan but your candidate is as flawed as they come. She couldn't beat an unknown first term Senator in 2008, nor beat Bernie without the fix being in. FYI - John Kerry was assembling a cabinet before the 2004 election because he was ahead and thought a winner too. Like I said, I'll give you a pass, you've been brainwashed by the liberal establishment, probably went to some left-wing university and 25 years old and have no benchmark for how insane it would be having this corrupt/lying hag for a president. She's owned up and down by all those "donations" to the Clinton Machine. Do you think those people gave hundreds of millions of dollars to her and Willy because they're so nice? Open your eyes already...
0
Really? Check your data. Carter was ahead of Reagan 1 week before election
https://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/
Are you really serious that this woman isn't the most corrupt person to ever run for office? Really? Justice department is owned by King Obama and that puppet Lynch who came after the previous puppet Holder. She's a loser and hopefully soon to be wearing orange pants suits daily. Do you pay attention to what's coming out about your beloved party everyday? How can you ignore the scandals that have followed this family for 30 years? The fix was in for her from the beginning versus Bernie Sanders. The party didn't even bother putting any real competition up against her, she was the "chosen one".
The Clinton Foundation? Anthony Wiener will go down as the person responsible for finally bringing her down. I agree Trump is no Reagan but your candidate is as flawed as they come. She couldn't beat an unknown first term Senator in 2008, nor beat Bernie without the fix being in. FYI - John Kerry was assembling a cabinet before the 2004 election because he was ahead and thought a winner too. Like I said, I'll give you a pass, you've been brainwashed by the liberal establishment, probably went to some left-wing university and 25 years old and have no benchmark for how insane it would be having this corrupt/lying hag for a president. She's owned up and down by all those "donations" to the Clinton Machine. Do you think those people gave hundreds of millions of dollars to her and Willy because they're so nice? Open your eyes already...
According to snopes, Reagan wasn't trailing Carter in all polls and benefited from TV debates. However Trump performed badly and received no boost from debates.
Despite years of investigations, Clinton has never been indicted. Under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty by judge. However Trump has a long criminal history. Although Clinton is imperfect, Trump is worse and unfit to be President.
0
According to snopes, Reagan wasn't trailing Carter in all polls and benefited from TV debates. However Trump performed badly and received no boost from debates.
Despite years of investigations, Clinton has never been indicted. Under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty by judge. However Trump has a long criminal history. Although Clinton is imperfect, Trump is worse and unfit to be President.
Despite years of investigations, Clinton has never been indicted. Under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty by judge. However Trump has a long criminal history. Although Clinton is imperfect, Trump is worse and unfit to be President.
Donald J. Trump has never been indicted either and under the US law, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not by a judge).....
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
A
Despite years of investigations, Clinton has never been indicted. Under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty by judge. However Trump has a long criminal history. Although Clinton is imperfect, Trump is worse and unfit to be President.
Donald J. Trump has never been indicted either and under the US law, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not by a judge).....
Has trump ever been charged/convicted of anything? Did he repeatedly lie to the FBI? How do u make the claim he's the criminal?The only reason the hag isn't in cuffs yet is the justice department has her back - for now. It now seems the empty suit is moonwalking away from her so he doesn't tarnish his "legacy" (which is a belly laugh in itself). Obamacare may not survive his term. I'm sure your not worried 3P since your good on mommies plan until your 26. 650,000 emails on Huma's computer is more than enough to put them both away... Watergate was 1 act and it wouldn't go away. The Clintons are a crime family and eventually they are going away too.
0
Has trump ever been charged/convicted of anything? Did he repeatedly lie to the FBI? How do u make the claim he's the criminal?The only reason the hag isn't in cuffs yet is the justice department has her back - for now. It now seems the empty suit is moonwalking away from her so he doesn't tarnish his "legacy" (which is a belly laugh in itself). Obamacare may not survive his term. I'm sure your not worried 3P since your good on mommies plan until your 26. 650,000 emails on Huma's computer is more than enough to put them both away... Watergate was 1 act and it wouldn't go away. The Clintons are a crime family and eventually they are going away too.
Donald J. Trump has never been indicted either and under the US law, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not by a judge).....
Exactly horse. The liberal excuses for Hillary are fascinating to hear. How desperate they try to turn chicken chit into chicken salad.
Can anybody tell wtf the FBI is doing right now? I mean right this minute? I mean it's not as though we have a presidential candidate that may slide into the WH on Tuesday. Let's get busy gentlemen for crisakes. You'll never get that woman when she takes office.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Donald J. Trump has never been indicted either and under the US law, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not by a judge).....
Exactly horse. The liberal excuses for Hillary are fascinating to hear. How desperate they try to turn chicken chit into chicken salad.
Can anybody tell wtf the FBI is doing right now? I mean right this minute? I mean it's not as though we have a presidential candidate that may slide into the WH on Tuesday. Let's get busy gentlemen for crisakes. You'll never get that woman when she takes office.
Has trump ever been charged/convicted of anything? Did he repeatedly lie to the FBI? How do u make the claim he's the criminal?The only reason the hag isn't in cuffs yet is the justice department has her back - for now. It now seems the empty suit is moonwalking away from her so he doesn't tarnish his "legacy" (which is a belly laugh in itself). Obamacare may not survive his term. I'm sure your not worried 3P since your good on mommies plan until your 26. 650,000 emails on Huma's computer is more than enough to put them both away... Watergate was 1 act and it wouldn't go away. The Clintons are a crime family and eventually they are going away too.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the DOJ cannot or rarely, if ever over stepped and FBI investigation result and recommendation for indictment. It doesn't happen.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
Has trump ever been charged/convicted of anything? Did he repeatedly lie to the FBI? How do u make the claim he's the criminal?The only reason the hag isn't in cuffs yet is the justice department has her back - for now. It now seems the empty suit is moonwalking away from her so he doesn't tarnish his "legacy" (which is a belly laugh in itself). Obamacare may not survive his term. I'm sure your not worried 3P since your good on mommies plan until your 26. 650,000 emails on Huma's computer is more than enough to put them both away... Watergate was 1 act and it wouldn't go away. The Clintons are a crime family and eventually they are going away too.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the DOJ cannot or rarely, if ever over stepped and FBI investigation result and recommendation for indictment. It doesn't happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the DOJ cannot or rarely, if ever over stepped and FBI investigation result and recommendation for indictment. It doesn't happen.
it's not uncommon for the doj to fail to indict a case brought to them by the fbi. the doj can do whatever they want and are more qualified to make the decision. although i'm sure it happens less than half of the time. however, in a case of significance, the doj and the fbi would be working together on an investigation and talking about it along the way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the DOJ cannot or rarely, if ever over stepped and FBI investigation result and recommendation for indictment. It doesn't happen.
it's not uncommon for the doj to fail to indict a case brought to them by the fbi. the doj can do whatever they want and are more qualified to make the decision. although i'm sure it happens less than half of the time. however, in a case of significance, the doj and the fbi would be working together on an investigation and talking about it along the way.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
