- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:46 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Mr. Buck. Would destruction of evidence be one indicia of intent?
Mr. McCabe. It could be, depending on the facts.
Well, Mr. McCabe, the facts show that Clinton had intent to destroy evidence
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:48 pm to Bunyan
Lynch is slick as a snake in the grass.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:51 pm to BobBoucher
But actually when you read the long passage CA just posted, she has plausible deniability regarding DOJ policy not to confirm or deny an investigation.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:51 pm to Bunyan
Lock them up!
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:53 pm to cajunangelle
do we dispute that DOJ policy required that they not say they were investigating?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:54 pm to baybeefeetz
May God strike me down where I sit if Loretta Lynch ever said "we need to cooperate fully and fulsomely" with congress, behind closed doors. 
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:54 pm to Bunyan
Oh! This is going to be good.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:56 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
do we dispute that DOJ policy required that they not say they were investigating?
As it pertains to congressional oversight? I don't know, but I wonder if it matters in closed communication with Congress, especially if she wanted to be "fulsomely honest" and they believed investigation was an appropriate description.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:56 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
do we dispute that DOJ policy required that they not say they were investigating
Absolutely we dispute that. They can't talk about the particulars of the investigation, but you always here DOJ officials stating that they can't discuss something that's considered a "ongoing investigation."
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:56 pm to MMauler
True
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:57 pm to baybeefeetz
Comey was told how Lynch was referring to it way before it came out. So they weren't any where near confirming an investigation, they were framing how they would.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:58 pm to TidenUP
quote:Yeah, she never answered the question directly. Surprised they didn't follow up on that.
Lynch: "I have never instructed a witness on what to say,specifically".
That's nice but Comey wasn't a witness. He was an investigator.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 7:58 pm to Bunyan
PREJURY!!! 
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:04 pm to Bunyan
Oh yeah!
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:05 pm to Bunyan
Rybicki is either the dumbest mf'er in the FBI or has the memory of a goldfish
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:05 pm to Bunyan
quote:
Director Comey
Hang him by his neck until his feet quit kickin
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:05 pm to Bunyan
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:08 pm to baybeefeetz
It’s pretty clear one of them is lying.
Did they both testify before Congress? And we know at least one of them lied to Congress?
Hmmmm
Did they both testify before Congress? And we know at least one of them lied to Congress?
Hmmmm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 8:10 pm to MileHighDraw
About that one thing, one of them lied. In general, I think it's safe to assume they both lied to congress.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News