Oh look, it's not just Fox News reporting it, either. Although, of course, CNN has an unidentified "source" that says it's all a big misunderstanding. Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/comey-began-drafting-exoneration-statement-before-interviewing-clinton-senators-say.html James Comey Prepared Statement
That's already a classic: posting "lock her up" links while demanding "proof" of collusion from Mueller's investigation (which is not over). This little factoid does not change the basics: Clinton e-mails were investigated, and the evidence does not add up to criminal indictment. Just like with every, single, one of the dozens silly Clintonworld "controversies". #stillwithher
Which tells us what we already knew, that Comey's original FBI investigation was not conducted in good faith. So why not reopen the investigation? Order the Justice Department to investigate not only Hillary's flouting of public records laws (her work related emails were public records) and data security rules (a secretary of state avoiding the State Department's "secure" system and routing everything through her own computer?), her handling of classified information in such a cavalier manner (which would get lesser employees fired and/or prosecuted), but perhaps more importantly the dealings of the Clinton Foundation. We know that it was receiving large donations (totalling hundreds of millions) from many foreign governments and foreign business moguls while Hillary was Secretary of State and while she was presumptive next President of the United States. That's presumbly why she kept all of her emails on her own system and why she unilaterally deleted tens of thousands of them, deciding on her own that they were "irrelevant". To show that contributors were buying access and favors, just compare her list of face-to-face meetings with the donor lists. Compare the list of special favors done to the donor lists. A disproportionate percentage of the names on the former lists will be on the latter list too. Prima facie, quid pro quo. https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625 If the Trump administration ever reopens an investigation (they probably should), Hillary is toast. (They should open an investigation of Lois Lerner and that crowd at the IRS too. She already essentially admitted her complicity in crimes when she took the 5th before Congress. Try to realize Kizmet's dream and get her to flip on whoever ordered that the IRS be weaponized, presumably Barack Hussein Obama.)
Apparently they weren't investigated thoroughly, because the decision to not charge came before the investigation was complete. With Mueller's witch hunt, we have an investigation in search of crime, with this we had a crime in search of an exoneration. Does the FBI seriously still wonder why they're the punchline of a million bad jokes in law enforcement these days?
It's a reasonable question. What's your theory? Why aren't they doing it? It's a Republican AG, Republican Congress, etc. All Sessions would have to do is say the word. So why doesn't he do it?
You didn't know it then, and do not now. But it's always fun to jump to conclusions, right? All righty then. You write Prima facie, quid pro quo in Latin in cursive, so it must be doubly profound. Besides, we all remember how Hillary illegally used her foundation to pay off a prosecutor general who then closed a criminal probe... Wait - it was Trump. How about when she invited her Russian buddies to the Oval Office to spill some top secret... nope, also Trump. Shall I continue? Pop quiz: what was the security label of the secure system Hillary replaced with the homebrew? Which one was definitely hacked: the homebrew or the government system? Was it better or worse when Powell used Yahoo Mail for work? There is nothing to be gained by comparing CF donor lists and Sec. Clinton's State Department meetings (these are bound to overlap, btw, because both draw from the rich and influential). How do I know? If it were, it'll be all over right wing media by now You mean, like Mike Flynn? Boy, this is fun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html
Yeah, that's the part that doesn't make sense. Just because he's recused from the Russian investigation it doesn't mean he can't start a different investigation with a different purpose. Ina worst case scenario, his #2 could do it. BTW, you need to be more careful. We may have just caught you reading the MSM. If you keep that up you might actually begin to understand what's happening.
What is the reason? Mueller's not saying so you tell me. Investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election? If so then why isn't Hillary's crew being hauled in?
Actually, we have a RINO AG, RINO Congress, etc. If I were Trump, I would have given Sessions his walking papers quite awhile ago. He seems much more concerned with not rocking the boat and being the good old boy than of actually enforcing the law.
So maybe instead of being a Trump supporter it turns out that your're really a Bannon supporter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bannon-declares-war-with-republican-leadership-in-congress/2017/09/10/57c08fa2-9668-11e7-87fc-c3f7ee4035c9_story.html?utm_term=.2d525b88e40a