Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Obama emailed with Hillary on the illegal server. If she is brought down, he goes down, also. That isn't allowed, so nothing will be done.

---

You guys seem to have the impression that the president and the secretary of state sit in their cubicles emailing each other like Jack from accounting and Diane from purchasing do.

There is not going to be very many emails sent by the president or the secretary; they have staff to do that. As I understand it, Trump does not even have an email account.

Today shows the problem with conspiracy theories. every turn of events can be explained by the conspiracy, it is circular logic on full display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there had been, there would never have been a press conference in which Comey called Clinton careless with classified info, there would never been a re-opening of the investigation; the re-opening of the investigation would never had been announced; Trump's alleged Russia contacts would have been shouted from the rooftops; the Republican oversight committees would have found and proved the conspiracy and the Republican-led DOJ would have done the same.

You have to be satisfied with the truth. That Clinton was both careless and arrogant in her approach to classified materials and that fact hurt her badly in the campaign. As this all happened more than 6 years ago, why don't we move on?

---

I don't think Hillary should be prosecuted at this point. We've already gone too far criminalizing political differences. However, this whole method of analyzing conspiracies is just fundamentally wrong. You're assuming that anyone trying to protect Hillary or damage Trump could only have acted in the clumsiest and most blatant way possible, which ensures that you'll never find anything amiss if the wrongdoers make the slightest effort to maintain appearances. For example, you seem to think that if the DOJ had rigged the game in Hillary's favor, Comey would have praised her to the stars and said she acted with the utmost care. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, and it's certainly not the kind of assumption an impartial investigator would make in an ordinary case. It's like exonerating a white collar criminal on the grounds that if he'd really wanted to steal money he would have gone in with two six-shooters and a bandanna.

---

You extended my argument way beyond anything I intended. All I am saying is that actions are evidence of intent. In this case the FBI/DOJ actions do not evidence an intent to impact the election in Hillary's favor.

I have been harping on this for months and no one has given me an answer: if Comey and his posse wanted Hillary in and Trump out, why did the hold press conferences about Hillary's problems and not say anything about Trump-Russia?

I hear you saying that maybe they were just lousy conspirators. I don't believe that, but if true, at this point it's no harm, no foul.

---

I think I answered your question. The Russia investigation was no secret. It was public knowledge at least six weeks before the election.

Was the DOJ so committed to Hillary that they would refuse to investigate her, or refuse to see the investigation through to its conclusion? So committed that they wouldn't allow Comey to call Hillary careless when literally every person on every side of the debate already knew it? So committed that they would overtly try to influence the election by "shouting from the rooftops" about Trump?

Okay, no. I'll give you that. But is there evidence that the Russia investigation was politically motivated? Yes, there is. Is there evidence that the FISA warrant process was abused? Yes, there is. Were the general accusations against Trump leaked before the election? Yes, they were. And the reason it's not "no harm, no foul" is that Trump is still dealing with an investigation two years later.

Like you said...you have to be satisfied with the truth.

---

There is a big difference between not being a secret and publicly describing evidence that is harmful to a candidate. The FBI/DOJ/Obama Administration cold have inflicted more damage on the Trump campaign and did not (appropriately so). They could have inflicted less damage on the Clinton campaign, but they (maybe he-Comey) blasted away. The facts about what happened during the election investigations are the exact opposite of the Trump narrative.

I'll grant you that I don't know how much of the investigation into Russia was politically motivated. I am sure that a left-leaning agent or official who sees a potential lead tying attempted russian interference to the Trump campaign has dual motives, wanting t catch both russia and Trump. That is the nature of the beast.

But a couple of points that seem to get lost in the shuffle. First, there is a difference between the investigation and any prosecutions that might arise. Obama and hid DOJ/FBI did not prosecute anyone in Trump world for whatever they did. Prosecutions will come from Robert Mueller's team. Mueller was appointed by Republicans, confirmed by Republicans, praised by Republicans at the time of his appointment (including Donald Trump) and Mueller himself is a Republican to the extent he is not completely apolitical. That apolitical nature seems evident in the fact that the MUeller group does not seem to leak anything or respond to repeated political attacks on them. They just do their work, seeming to be content to let the facts dictate the result. So it is hard to see that the end result of the Mueller investigation will be politically motivated, even if there was some political motivation to the original investigation.

Second, the "let the facts dictate the result" approach really ought to be what we are all rooting for, no? I am pretty sure Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop. I would not be surprised if Mark Fuhrman had racist thoughts and motivations during the O.J. Simpson investigation. I might look at evidence connected to Fuhrman a little more skeptically becuase of that. But at the end of the day, if the evidence proves that OJ had a beef with Nicole, a history of physically abusing her, his DNA and belongings were at the scene, he ran and lied to the cops during the investigation, etc., etc., I am going to conclude O.J. was guilty of murder.

Eventually we will know what facts Mueller and his team uncovered. Lets use those facts to decide if there is any guilt. seems like a better approach than pretending Mueller has some sort of deep state agenda to bring down the president.

---

Do you hope Trump is impeached and removed from office?

---

No. I hope he is voted out of office.

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

How will the report get Hillary in trouble? We already know what she did--she was careless with emails. The report is about how the FBI investigated the claims and decided what to do about them.

You don't seriously think Hillary is going to be prosecuted 6 years after the fact?

---

This:

and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.

---

Be careful what you wish for. If you liked the baseball field shooting a while back then you're in luck, because I can almost guarantee that if that particular investigation is reopened in an attempt to deflect from Trump's troubles, it might beget violence. A politically motivated prosecution like that would be like crossing the Rubicon, and there will be no turning back once that happens.

---

Are you f_cking kidding me right now?

---

No I'm not, if Trump persecutes his enemies with the power of the government (which is how it will look if the email server investigation is reopened years after the fact), while openly flouting the rule of law himself, that won't sit well with a lot of people who don't like him already. This country is dry tinder right now, and political prosecutions tend to send off a lot of sparks.

---

The irony in this is monumental.

---

I did always think it was ironic that the "lock her up" crowd suddenly gets all pissy when it turns out that Trump and his entire inner circle may be criminals who might have to face accountability...

The email investigation is a settled matter, reopening it during a campaign season will not be something that passes quietly. Did y'all really think that Republicans could openly play with the idea of locking up their opposition without any consequences?

---

They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.

---

Ya, it was those damn Democrats chanting "lock her up", and that Democrat Donald Trump who tweets every week that he wants "his" DoJ to investigate the Republicans...

---

You're lost in emotion. The irony is believing a Clinton pursuit is a political witch hunt, and what's been going on with Trump is not. I do know Democrats actually used foreign intelligence against a political opponent. Rigged their own internal election, and used government resources to spy on and investigate a political campaign, candidate, and elected official. Mueller has become Ken Starr on steroids.

---

Funny that you bring up Ken Starr, because a lot of people don't remember that he wasn't the first Special Counsel appointed to look into the Clintons, he was the one appointed after the original investigations didn't find what the Republicans were looking for, and he eventually got Clinton by setting up a perjury trap completely unrelated to the Whitewater investigation he was supposed to be appointed for.

I'm saying that reopening this investigation now, after it was already completed and after the myriad of investigations into Hillary over the last 5yrs or so, will be viewed as a witchunt. The time to indict Hillary over this was in 2016, and if it happens in 2018 there will be accusations of foul play, especially given Trumps repeated "requests" to have the Democrats investigated. I don't think this IG report will reopen the Hillary investigation at all since it is an internal investigation into FBI conduct, I was just telling some of the more rabid Trump-ists on here to be careful what they wish for, because these things have real world ramifications that they may not like.

It's crazy how flustered they are too, after promising violence if Mueller finds (or makes up, in their minds) the goods on Trump. They can dish it but they can't take it, I suppose.

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.

DaveyBear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

How will the report get Hillary in trouble? We already know what she did--she was careless with emails. The report is about how the FBI investigated the claims and decided what to do about them.

You don't seriously think Hillary is going to be prosecuted 6 years after the fact?

---

This:

and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.

---

Be careful what you wish for. If you liked the baseball field shooting a while back then you're in luck, because I can almost guarantee that if that particular investigation is reopened in an attempt to deflect from Trump's troubles, it might beget violence. A politically motivated prosecution like that would be like crossing the Rubicon, and there will be no turning back once that happens.

---

Are you f_cking kidding me right now?

---

No I'm not, if Trump persecutes his enemies with the power of the government (which is how it will look if the email server investigation is reopened years after the fact), while openly flouting the rule of law himself, that won't sit well with a lot of people who don't like him already. This country is dry tinder right now, and political prosecutions tend to send off a lot of sparks.

---

The irony in this is monumental.

---

I did always think it was ironic that the "lock her up" crowd suddenly gets all pissy when it turns out that Trump and his entire inner circle may be criminals who might have to face accountability...

The email investigation is a settled matter, reopening it during a campaign season will not be something that passes quietly. Did y'all really think that Republicans could openly play with the idea of locking up their opposition without any consequences?

---

They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.

---

Ya, it was those damn Democrats chanting "lock her up", and that Democrat Donald Trump who tweets every week that he wants "his" DoJ to investigate the Republicans...

---

You're lost in emotion. The irony is believing a Clinton pursuit is a political witch hunt, and what's been going on with Trump is not. I do know Democrats actually used foreign intelligence against a political opponent. Rigged their own internal election, and used government resources to spy on and investigate a political campaign, candidate, and elected official. Mueller has become Ken Starr on steroids.

---

Funny that you bring up Ken Starr, because a lot of people don't remember that he wasn't the first Special Counsel appointed to look into the Clintons, he was the one appointed after the original investigations didn't find what the Republicans were looking for, and he eventually got Clinton by setting up a perjury trap completely unrelated to the Whitewater investigation he was supposed to be appointed for.

I'm saying that reopening this investigation now, after it was already completed and after the myriad of investigations into Hillary over the last 5yrs or so, will be viewed as a witchunt. The time to indict Hillary over this was in 2016, and if it happens in 2018 there will be accusations of foul play, especially given Trumps repeated "requests" to have the Democrats investigated. I don't think this IG report will reopen the Hillary investigation at all since it is an internal investigation into FBI conduct, I was just telling some of the more rabid Trump-ists on here to be careful what they wish for, because these things have real world ramifications that they may not like.

It's crazy how flustered they are too, after promising violence if Mueller finds (or makes up, in their minds) the goods on Trump. They can dish it but they can't take it, I suppose.

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.

---

Starr was actually appointed as Independent Counsel by a special three-judge division of the DC Circuit. He replaced Robert Fiske, a Republican. You should probably stfu with that "dumbest poster" talk if you're gonna spout some false bullsh/t like you just did.

Trump's boys are going to the holding cell while the First Lady makes Hilliary look healthy.
The more Trump chants, "lock her up", the sicker his wife gets and the closer it gets to him getting stabbed in the back by his friends.

xiledinok said:

---

Trump's boys are going to the holding cell while the First Lady makes Hilliary look healthy.
The more Trump chants, "lock her up", the sicker his wife gets and the closer it gets to him getting stabbed in the back by his friends.

---

It's crazy isn't it? They still chant "lock her up" at rallies now, in mid 2018, as if Hillary is an ex-gf they can't get over. To be honest, it's hard not to experience a little bit of schadenfreude as the "lock her up" crew themselves start to get locked up.

HuMcK said:

---

DaveyBear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

How will the report get Hillary in trouble? We already know what she did--she was careless with emails. The report is about how the FBI investigated the claims and decided what to do about them.

You don't seriously think Hillary is going to be prosecuted 6 years after the fact?

---

This:

and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.

---

Be careful what you wish for. If you liked the baseball field shooting a while back then you're in luck, because I can almost guarantee that if that particular investigation is reopened in an attempt to deflect from Trump's troubles, it might beget violence. A politically motivated prosecution like that would be like crossing the Rubicon, and there will be no turning back once that happens.

---

Are you f_cking kidding me right now?

---

No I'm not, if Trump persecutes his enemies with the power of the government (which is how it will look if the email server investigation is reopened years after the fact), while openly flouting the rule of law himself, that won't sit well with a lot of people who don't like him already. This country is dry tinder right now, and political prosecutions tend to send off a lot of sparks.

---

The irony in this is monumental.

---

I did always think it was ironic that the "lock her up" crowd suddenly gets all pissy when it turns out that Trump and his entire inner circle may be criminals who might have to face accountability...

The email investigation is a settled matter, reopening it during a campaign season will not be something that passes quietly. Did y'all really think that Republicans could openly play with the idea of locking up their opposition without any consequences?

---

They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.

---

Ya, it was those damn Democrats chanting "lock her up", and that Democrat Donald Trump who tweets every week that he wants "his" DoJ to investigate the Republicans...

---

You're lost in emotion. The irony is believing a Clinton pursuit is a political witch hunt, and what's been going on with Trump is not. I do know Democrats actually used foreign intelligence against a political opponent. Rigged their own internal election, and used government resources to spy on and investigate a political campaign, candidate, and elected official. Mueller has become Ken Starr on steroids.

---

Funny that you bring up Ken Starr, because a lot of people don't remember that he wasn't the first Special Counsel appointed to look into the Clintons, he was the one appointed after the original investigations didn't find what the Republicans were looking for, and he eventually got Clinton by setting up a perjury trap completely unrelated to the Whitewater investigation he was supposed to be appointed for.

I'm saying that reopening this investigation now, after it was already completed and after the myriad of investigations into Hillary over the last 5yrs or so, will be viewed as a witchunt. The time to indict Hillary over this was in 2016, and if it happens in 2018 there will be accusations of foul play, especially given Trumps repeated "requests" to have the Democrats investigated. I don't think this IG report will reopen the Hillary investigation at all since it is an internal investigation into FBI conduct, I was just telling some of the more rabid Trump-ists on here to be careful what they wish for, because these things have real world ramifications that they may not like.

It's crazy how flustered they are too, after promising violence if Mueller finds (or makes up, in their minds) the goods on Trump. They can dish it but they can't take it, I suppose.

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.

---

Starr was actually appointed as Independent Counsel by a special three-judge division of the DC Circuit. He replaced Robert Fiske, a Republican. You should probably stfu with that "dumbest poster" talk if you're gonna spout some false bullsh/t like you just did.

---

His approval was through the DCC, Reno 's signature is on the document. Period. Ask Judge Starr about it sometime.

Reno's signature may be on some document. I would assume she would have had to sign off of recusing herself. Nevertheless it was a 3 judge panel that selected the independent counsel under that statute.

Booray said:

---

There is a big difference between not being a secret and publicly describing evidence that is harmful to a candidate. The FBI/DOJ/Obama Administration cold have inflicted more damage on the Trump campaign and did not (appropriately so). They could have inflicted less damage on the Clinton campaign, but they (maybe he-Comey) blasted away. The facts about what happened during the election investigations are the exact opposite of the Trump narrative.

I'll grant you that I don't know how much of the investigation into Russia was politically motivated. I am sure that a left-leaning agent or official who sees a potential lead tying attempted Russian interference to the Trump campaign has dual motives, wanting to catch both Russia and Trump. That is the nature of the beast.

But a couple of points that seem to get lost in the shuffle. First, there is a difference between the investigation and any prosecutions that might arise. Obama and his DOJ/FBI did not prosecute anyone in Trump world for whatever they did. Prosecutions will come from Robert Mueller's team. Mueller was appointed by Republicans, confirmed by Republicans, praised by Republicans at the time of his appointment (including Donald Trump) and Mueller himself is a Republican to the extent he is not completely apolitical. That apolitical nature seems evident in the fact that the Mueller group does not seem to leak anything or respond to repeated political attacks on them. They just do their work, seeming to be content to let the facts dictate the result. So it is hard to see that the end result of the Mueller investigation will be politically motivated, even if there was some political motivation to the original investigation.

Second, the "let the facts dictate the result" approach really ought to be what we are all rooting for, no? I am pretty sure Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop. I would not be surprised if Mark Fuhrman had racist thoughts and motivations during the O.J. Simpson investigation. I might look at evidence connected to Fuhrman a little more skeptically becuase of that. But at the end of the day, if the evidence proves that OJ had a beef with Nicole, a history of physically abusing her, his DNA and belongings were at the scene, he ran and lied to the cops during the investigation, etc., etc., I am going to conclude O.J. was guilty of murder.

Eventually we will know what facts Mueller and his team uncovered. Lets use those facts to decide if there is any guilt. Seems like a better approach than pretending Mueller has some sort of deep state agenda to bring down the president.

---

It doesn't seem there was much evidence to describe. Even now it's the fact of the investigation, and all the speculation and innuendo going along with it, that's done more damage than anything else. Mueller's politics don't necessarily matter much.

Waiting for the facts is good, but it's also worth questioning the wisdom and motives for all of this. I think it's been far more destructive than most people yet realize. No doubt this will be apparent next time a Democrat is elected and Republicans start operating on the precedents being set today.

HuMcK said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Trump's boys are going to the holding cell while the First Lady makes Hilliary look healthy.
The more Trump chants, "lock her up", the sicker his wife gets and the closer it gets to him getting stabbed in the back by his friends.

---

It's crazy isn't it? They still chant "lock her up" at rallies now, in mid 2018, as if Hillary is an ex-gf they can't get over. To be honest, it's hard not to experience a little bit of schadenfreude as the "lock her up" crew themselves start to get locked up.

---

At this pace the Russian Mafia Princess will be running around naked on the White House lawn after losing her cool and going crazy.
My favorite back stabber is General Flynn. He choked up and is spilling the beans because federal prison would be tough with someone else giving him the orders. They will jam his rank up his rear.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a big difference between not being a secret and publicly describing evidence that is harmful to a candidate. The FBI/DOJ/Obama Administration cold have inflicted more damage on the Trump campaign and did not (appropriately so). They could have inflicted less damage on the Clinton campaign, but they (maybe he-Comey) blasted away. The facts about what happened during the election investigations are the exact opposite of the Trump narrative.

I'll grant you that I don't know how much of the investigation into Russia was politically motivated. I am sure that a left-leaning agent or official who sees a potential lead tying attempted Russian interference to the Trump campaign has dual motives, wanting to catch both Russia and Trump. That is the nature of the beast.

But a couple of points that seem to get lost in the shuffle. First, there is a difference between the investigation and any prosecutions that might arise. Obama and his DOJ/FBI did not prosecute anyone in Trump world for whatever they did. Prosecutions will come from Robert Mueller's team. Mueller was appointed by Republicans, confirmed by Republicans, praised by Republicans at the time of his appointment (including Donald Trump) and Mueller himself is a Republican to the extent he is not completely apolitical. That apolitical nature seems evident in the fact that the Mueller group does not seem to leak anything or respond to repeated political attacks on them. They just do their work, seeming to be content to let the facts dictate the result. So it is hard to see that the end result of the Mueller investigation will be politically motivated, even if there was some political motivation to the original investigation.

Second, the "let the facts dictate the result" approach really ought to be what we are all rooting for, no? I am pretty sure Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop. I would not be surprised if Mark Fuhrman had racist thoughts and motivations during the O.J. Simpson investigation. I might look at evidence connected to Fuhrman a little more skeptically becuase of that. But at the end of the day, if the evidence proves that OJ had a beef with Nicole, a history of physically abusing her, his DNA and belongings were at the scene, he ran and lied to the cops during the investigation, etc., etc., I am going to conclude O.J. was guilty of murder.

Eventually we will know what facts Mueller and his team uncovered. Lets use those facts to decide if there is any guilt. Seems like a better approach than pretending Mueller has some sort of deep state agenda to bring down the president.

---

It doesn't seem there was much evidence to describe. Even now it's the fact of the investigation, and all the speculation and innuendo going along with it, that's done more damage than anything else. Mueller's politics don't necessarily matter much.

Waiting for the facts is good, but it's also worth questioning the wisdom and motives for all of this. I think it's been far more destructive than most people yet realize. No doubt this will be apparent next time a Democrat is elected and Republicans start operating on the precedents being set today.

---

Again, lets be clear. Mueller was appointed by the party in power. Mueller is is not the one feeding all the speculation and innuendo; if Trump would stop tweeting about, half the coverage would disappear. If he could keep his own White House from leaking we would lose another quarter of the coverage.

We don't know what the evidence is, but we do know two facts at a basic level: the Russians interfered in our elections and Trump world lied about the extent of its contact with the Russians. I see three possible reasons for the lies. 1. Trump lies about everything all of the time. 2. Trump world Russia contact was nothing illicit, but its just hard to explain to america why you are close to Russians. 3. There was some level of cooperation.

All three seem feasible to me, given the little that I know. The subject is important enough to merit an investigation and I am happy to wait to hear what he finds.

Booray said:

---

Again, lets be clear. Mueller was appointed by the party in power. Mueller is is not the one feeding all the speculation and innuendo; if Trump would stop tweeting about, half the coverage would disappear. If he could keep his own White House from leaking we would lose another quarter of the coverage.

We don't know what the evidence is, but we do know two facts at a basic level: the Russians interfered in our elections and Trump world lied about the extent of its contact with the Russians. I see three possible reasons for the lies. 1. Trump lies about everything all of the time. 2. Trump world Russia contact was nothing illicit, but its just hard to explain to america why you are close to Russians. 3. There was some level of cooperation.

All three seem feasible to me, given the little that I know. The subject is important enough to merit an investigation and I am happy to wait to hear what he finds.

---

Fair enough, although I don't believe Sessions lied and I would point out that leaks from the White House are part of the same "deep state" issue that Trump has complained about all along.

If you have a chance, look at this article by Andrew McCarthy. He's been covering this story regularly since the beginning. He's also a long-time friend of James Comey. He has always maintained that Comey was acting sincerely in what he believed to be the country's best interests. I'm not suggesting you should change your mind based on a single article, but I think it will answer a lot of your questions. The idea of the Trump investigation as an insurance policy is especially relevant to why it wasn't announced sooner and in more detail.

President Trump please stop tearing us apart

DaveyBear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

How will the report get Hillary in trouble? We already know what she did--she was careless with emails. The report is about how the FBI investigated the claims and decided what to do about them.

You don't seriously think Hillary is going to be prosecuted 6 years after the fact?

---

This:

and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.

---

Be careful what you wish for. If you liked the baseball field shooting a while back then you're in luck, because I can almost guarantee that if that particular investigation is reopened in an attempt to deflect from Trump's troubles, it might beget violence. A politically motivated prosecution like that would be like crossing the Rubicon, and there will be no turning back once that happens.

---

Are you f_cking kidding me right now?

---

No I'm not, if Trump persecutes his enemies with the power of the government (which is how it will look if the email server investigation is reopened years after the fact), while openly flouting the rule of law himself, that won't sit well with a lot of people who don't like him already. This country is dry tinder right now, and political prosecutions tend to send off a lot of sparks.

---

The irony in this is monumental.

---

I did always think it was ironic that the "lock her up" crowd suddenly gets all pissy when it turns out that Trump and his entire inner circle may be criminals who might have to face accountability...

The email investigation is a settled matter, reopening it during a campaign season will not be something that passes quietly. Did y'all really think that Republicans could openly play with the idea of locking up their opposition without any consequences?

---

They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.

---

Ya, it was those damn Democrats chanting "lock her up", and that Democrat Donald Trump who tweets every week that he wants "his" DoJ to investigate the Republicans...

---

You're lost in emotion. The irony is believing a Clinton pursuit is a political witch hunt, and what's been going on with Trump is not. I do know Democrats actually used foreign intelligence against a political opponent. Rigged their own internal election, and used government resources to spy on and investigate a political campaign, candidate, and elected official. Mueller has become Ken Starr on steroids.

---

Funny that you bring up Ken Starr, because a lot of people don't remember that he wasn't the first Special Counsel appointed to look into the Clintons, he was the one appointed after the original investigations didn't find what the Republicans were looking for, and he eventually got Clinton by setting up a perjury trap completely unrelated to the Whitewater investigation he was supposed to be appointed for.

I'm saying that reopening this investigation now, after it was already completed and after the myriad of investigations into Hillary over the last 5yrs or so, will be viewed as a witchunt. The time to indict Hillary over this was in 2016, and if it happens in 2018 there will be accusations of foul play, especially given Trumps repeated "requests" to have the Democrats investigated. I don't think this IG report will reopen the Hillary investigation at all since it is an internal investigation into FBI conduct, I was just telling some of the more rabid Trump-ists on here to be careful what they wish for, because these things have real world ramifications that they may not like.

It's crazy how flustered they are too, after promising violence if Mueller finds (or makes up, in their minds) the goods on Trump. They can dish it but they can't take it, I suppose.

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.

---

Don't be giving away my title!

"Dumbest Postet?" Tommie? I think it's a moving target so keep your seat until official nominations are made.

Lyin' for Hillary

tommie said:

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.


Don't be giving away my title!

---

My wife asked me the other day where that trophy had disappeared to.

Malbec said:

---

tommie said:

---

You might be the dumbest poster on this board - that is a remarkable achievement. Who appoints a special prosecutor? House of Reps-nope, Senate-nope...Attorney General of the United State of America-yep. Did not know the Republicans could force AG Reno into looking into her Boss' monkey business.


Don't be giving away my title!

---

My wife asked me the other day where that trophy had disappeared to.

---

i think Gus has control of the Blake Eddy trophy right now... it hasnt been seen in a while

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-23/hillary-emailgate-how-one-twitter-user-proved-intent-fbi-missed-after-months-investi

America is best served by voting out Trump. Impeachment is too hard on the citizens. It does too much distrust. Having said that I still support Mueller investigation.

The only reason Hillary gets away with it is because Obama emailed her private server.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Obama emailed with Hillary on the illegal server. If she is brought down, he goes down, also. That isn't allowed, so nothing will be done.

---

You guys seem to have the impression that the president and the secretary of state sit in their cubicles emailing each other like Jack from accounting and Diane from purchasing do.

There is not going to be very many emails sent by the president or the secretary; they have staff to do that. As I understand it, Trump does not even have an email account.

Today shows the problem with conspiracy theories. every turn of events can be explained by the conspiracy, it is circular logic on full display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there had been, there would never have been a press conference in which Comey called Clinton careless with classified info, there would never been a re-opening of the investigation; the re-opening of the investigation would never had been announced; Trump's alleged Russia contacts would have been shouted from the rooftops; the Republican oversight committees would have found and proved the conspiracy and the Republican-led DOJ would have done the same.

You have to be satisfied with the truth. That Clinton was both careless and arrogant in her approach to classified materials and that fact hurt her badly in the campaign. As this all happened more than 6 years ago, why don't we move on?

---

I don't think Hillary should be prosecuted at this point. We've already gone too far criminalizing political differences. However, this whole method of analyzing conspiracies is just fundamentally wrong. You're assuming that anyone trying to protect Hillary or damage Trump could only have acted in the clumsiest and most blatant way possible, which ensures that you'll never find anything amiss if the wrongdoers make the slightest effort to maintain appearances. For example, you seem to think that if the DOJ had rigged the game in Hillary's favor, Comey would have praised her to the stars and said she acted with the utmost care. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, and it's certainly not the kind of assumption an impartial investigator would make in an ordinary case. It's like exonerating a white collar criminal on the grounds that if he'd really wanted to steal money he would have gone in with two six-shooters and a bandanna.

---

You extended my argument way beyond anything I intended. All I am saying is that actions are evidence of intent. In this case the FBI/DOJ actions do not evidence an intent to impact the election in Hillary's favor.

I have been harping on this for months and no one has given me an answer: if Comey and his posse wanted Hillary in and Trump out, why did the hold press conferences about Hillary's problems and not say anything about Trump-Russia?

I hear you saying that maybe they were just lousy conspirators. I don't believe that, but if true, at this point it's no harm, no foul.

---

I think I answered your question. The Russia investigation was no secret. It was public knowledge at least six weeks before the election.

Was the DOJ so committed to Hillary that they would refuse to investigate her, or refuse to see the investigation through to its conclusion? So committed that they wouldn't allow Comey to call Hillary careless when literally every person on every side of the debate already knew it? So committed that they would overtly try to influence the election by "shouting from the rooftops" about Trump?

Okay, no. I'll give you that. But is there evidence that the Russia investigation was politically motivated? Yes, there is. Is there evidence that the FISA warrant process was abused? Yes, there is. Were the general accusations against Trump leaked before the election? Yes, they were. And the reason it's not "no harm, no foul" is that Trump is still dealing with an investigation two years later.

Like you said...you have to be satisfied with the truth.

---

There is a big difference between not being a secret and publicly describing evidence that is harmful to a candidate. The FBI/DOJ/Obama Administration cold have inflicted more damage on the Trump campaign and did not (appropriately so). They could have inflicted less damage on the Clinton campaign, but they (maybe he-Comey) blasted away. The facts about what happened during the election investigations are the exact opposite of the Trump narrative.

I'll grant you that I don't know how much of the investigation into Russia was politically motivated. I am sure that a left-leaning agent or official who sees a potential lead tying attempted Russian interference to the Trump campaign has dual motives, wanting to catch both Russia and Trump. That is the nature of the beast.

But a couple of points that seem to get lost in the shuffle. First, there is a difference between the investigation and any prosecutions that might arise. Obama and his DOJ/FBI did not prosecute anyone in Trump world for whatever they did. Prosecutions will come from Robert Mueller's team. Mueller was appointed by Republicans, confirmed by Republicans, praised by Republicans at the time of his appointment (including Donald Trump) and Mueller himself is a Republican to the extent he is not completely apolitical. That apolitical nature seems evident in the fact that the Mueller group does not seem to leak anything or respond to repeated political attacks on them. They just do their work, seeming to be content to let the facts dictate the result. So it is hard to see that the end result of the Mueller investigation will be politically motivated, even if there was some political motivation to the original investigation.

Second, the "let the facts dictate the result" approach really ought to be what we are all rooting for, no? I am pretty sure Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop. I would not be surprised if Mark Fuhrman had racist thoughts and motivations during the O.J. Simpson investigation. I might look at evidence connected to Fuhrman a little more skeptically becuase of that. But at the end of the day, if the evidence proves that OJ had a beef with Nicole, a history of physically abusing her, his DNA and belongings were at the scene, he ran and lied to the cops during the investigation, etc., etc., I am going to conclude O.J. was guilty of murder.

Eventually we will know what facts Mueller and his team uncovered. Lets use those facts to decide if there is any guilt. Seems like a better approach than pretending Mueller has some sort of deep state agenda to bring down the president.

---

Given your example of Mark Fuhrman, would you also apply the same lense to the lead FBI Russia investigator who texted his girlfriend "We will not let it happen" when asked if Trump could really get elected?

Doc Holliday said:

---

The only reason Hillary gets away with it is because Obama emailed her private server.

---

Correct. If you convict Hillary, you convict Obama. It's all there in the weiner laptop.

I say "Impeach Hillary."

Once again, you guys have a big nothing but can't accept that, so you make up new stories to keep the circle going.

Keep on jerking guys!

fubar said:

---

Once again, you guys have a big nothing but can't accept that, so you make up new stories to keep the circle going.

Keep on jerking guys!

---

So why did she lose?

Jack and DP said:

---

fubar said:

---

Once again, you guys have a big nothing but can't accept that, so you make up new stories to keep the circle going.

Keep on jerking guys!

---

So why did she lose?

---

You mean other than Comey's and Putin's interference?

This was such a promising thread. What happened?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

This was such a promising thread. What happened?

---

She got 10-15 for illegal emailectomy.

Unless those outside of government are allowed to prosecute those inside government(I mean they are the taxpayers employees!) rarely does anything ever happen and never to someone as important to democrat reputations as Clinton. We all know all roads lead to Obama on corruption but he can NEVER be approached with prosecution. Democrats, as HuMcK says, would protect both Clintons and Obama with arms if needed

I can certainly see Antifa with masks and arms

And we all also know the longtime Trump investigation simply provides cover for what Clintons, Obama admin and DNC have done. That is purpose of the never ending investigation into Trump. It's simple diversion! There was a long time between Trump's election and inauguration for the destruction of records as Doc and Rifle mention recently in this thread. They were hard at work for those 75 days destroying their tracks! We all know, deep down this could have and probably did happen too

Democrats repeat lies long enough until people believe they're true is an old democrat tactic. It's worked with slavery why not something as simple as a lowly email scandal. Democrat defenses are simply in their tactics and this one is to lie lie lie

HuMcK has certainly bought into the lie hasn't he

So in reality nothing and "DEVASTATING" was a highly dramatic but inaccurate word to use?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

So in reality nothing and "DEVASTATING" was a highly dramatic but inaccurate word to use?

---

She's in trouble, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

There's enough to arrest Hillary right now.

She is above the law. Politics keeps justice from happening.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

So in reality nothing and "DEVASTATING" was a highly dramatic but inaccurate word to use?

---

Just wait. ****'s about to get real.


Also: Updated coup timeline coming soon.

I want thank you HRC haters for all your time spent on nonsense. But it is unfortunate that keeps you from real problems like low wages, health costs for the poor, education for all, increase in wage earnings and infrastructure. What are your answers there.?