Most people think we need to figure out whether the Russians influenced our last election, both Dems and Reps. Dems are more likely to think Trump opposes the investigation because he know they helped him.ATL Bear said:This response shows exactly who has "lost their mind". Now there's a good argument about violation of the Appointment's clause in the Constitution given the fact that Mueller has usurped much broader authority than his original task. He's now a de facto US Attorney prosecuting crimes that have nothing to do with Russian collusion. I know that pipe dream is being hung unto by blind partisans like yourself, but this is classic overreach and abuse of power. I frankly don't care for Trump, but like with Starr, I can see a scary abuse of law enforcement going on for political purposes.HuMcK said:I'm sorry but you have lost your mind if you think the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional, or even unwarranted. Maybe if Trump didn't wan't to be investigated for working with the Russians (who suspiciously only ever went after his opponents during the campaign...), then his campaign shouldn't have met with Russian assets in Trump Tower looking for help against Hillary. Or maybe they could have alerted the authorities to the offer instead of keeping quiet about it and lying to try and cover it up. Just a thoughtATL Bear said:You can be upset all you want about Trump's words, but there's only one far reaching, borderline unconstitutional, made for media speculation investigation going on. Put that insanity to rest, and the other parts get quiet too.HuMcK said: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.ATL Bear said: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.HuMcK said: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...ATL Bear said:They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.HuMcK said: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...ATL Bear said:The irony in this is monumental.HuMcK said: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.Doc Holliday said:Are you f_cking kidding me right now?HuMcK said: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.Doc Holliday said:This: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?
and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.
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?
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 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.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.
LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
that won't happen but it does prove that they both lied about it which isn't surprising. They both lied about everything related to this 'matter'.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.
Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Trump's entire "I can't obstruct justice" argument is built on the idea that as our political leader he can do whatever he wants re: law enforcement. So if you are saying no, you don't want "political bias" in government, you have to say that Trump can obstruct justice regardless of being the President. Are you willing to say that?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Look if you can overlook all the corruption of the FBI, Clinton and so on...then you should have ZERO faith that they will do anything to Trump if you actually believe there isn't a political bias in our government and our FBI.Booray said:Trump's entire "I can't obstruct justice" argument is built on the idea that as our political leader he can do whatever he wants re: law enforcement. So if you are saying no, you don't want "political bias" in government, you have to say that Trump can obstruct justice regardless of being the President. Are you willing to say that?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Law enforcement should not be politically biased. The inspector general's report, which you had touted for weeks says, guess what: this law enforcement investigation was not politically biased. So what is your point?
Quote:
Quote:
Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias. The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey's October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated:
13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: "As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?"
15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: "I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic's destruction"
Unsure if this is about Trump holding rallies still where "lock her up" is a primary chant, or if it is related to his tweeting out that he needs an FBI/DOJ that is loyal to him, or if it is related to his numerous calls to start investigations into those who have opposed him?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Of course the Russians meddled in our elections as they have for decades. What level of influence they had is questionable, but the fact Trump won seems to have people convinced it had to be Russian influence, especially those unhappy with that outcome. Instead, we now have a special prosecutor who's become a de facto Senior US Attorney prosecuting crimes unrelated to anything involving election collusion with the Russians. One certain thing that has come of this is that previously assumed objective law enforcement has been politicized, at least at senior levels. It's sad that it occurred in the prior administration, and it will be sadder if it is reciprocated by the current.T.M.Katz said:Most people think we need to figure out whether the Russians influenced our last election, both Dems and Reps. Dems are more likely to think Trump opposes the investigation because he know they helped him.ATL Bear said:This response shows exactly who has "lost their mind". Now there's a good argument about violation of the Appointment's clause in the Constitution given the fact that Mueller has usurped much broader authority than his original task. He's now a de facto US Attorney prosecuting crimes that have nothing to do with Russian collusion. I know that pipe dream is being hung unto by blind partisans like yourself, but this is classic overreach and abuse of power. I frankly don't care for Trump, but like with Starr, I can see a scary abuse of law enforcement going on for political purposes.HuMcK said:I'm sorry but you have lost your mind if you think the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional, or even unwarranted. Maybe if Trump didn't wan't to be investigated for working with the Russians (who suspiciously only ever went after his opponents during the campaign...), then his campaign shouldn't have met with Russian assets in Trump Tower looking for help against Hillary. Or maybe they could have alerted the authorities to the offer instead of keeping quiet about it and lying to try and cover it up. Just a thoughtATL Bear said:You can be upset all you want about Trump's words, but there's only one far reaching, borderline unconstitutional, made for media speculation investigation going on. Put that insanity to rest, and the other parts get quiet too.HuMcK said: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.ATL Bear said: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.HuMcK said: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...ATL Bear said:They cant seem to bring themselves to use Democratic tactics yet, so probably not.HuMcK said: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...ATL Bear said:The irony in this is monumental.HuMcK said: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.Doc Holliday said:Are you f_cking kidding me right now?HuMcK said: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.Doc Holliday said:This: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?
and the report will lead to reopening her email investigation.
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?
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.
It sounds very normal. FBI employees are not required to ignore what is happening in the country they are serving. Plenty of people have had the same water cooler discussions. If you want to find agents who have no political views, you are going to run short of agents.Doc Holliday said:Look if you can overlook all the corruption of the FBI, Clinton and so on...then you should have ZERO faith that they will do anything to Trump if you actually believe there isn't a political bias in our government and our FBI.Booray said:Trump's entire "I can't obstruct justice" argument is built on the idea that as our political leader he can do whatever he wants re: law enforcement. So if you are saying no, you don't want "political bias" in government, you have to say that Trump can obstruct justice regardless of being the President. Are you willing to say that?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Law enforcement should not be politically biased. The inspector general's report, which you had touted for weeks says, guess what: this law enforcement investigation was not politically biased. So what is your point?
Does this sound normal at all to you?
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
PG 416: ATTY 2 - "I NEVER REALLY LIKED THE REPUBLIC ANYWAY", "I HAVE INITIATED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC"
[url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download][/url]https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/downloadQuote:
Quote:
Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias. The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey's October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated:
13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: "As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?"
15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: "I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic's destruction"
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.Booray said: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.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.
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'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you didn't read the IG thread w/ multiple posts saying the IG explicitly said there was serious bias not only w/ Page & Strzok but 5 other FBI officials so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say the IG said there was not bias. He said the exact opposite.Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Of course. Just don't act or fail to act in a law enforcement capacity because of those same opinions. We're very close if not over that line. Trump may be saying words that infer that, but that's just talk relative to what actions or lack thereof that actually occurred before, during, and toward the current Administration.Booray said:It sounds very normal. FBI employees are not required to ignore what is happening in the country they are serving. Plenty of people have had the same water cooler discussions. If you want to find agents who have no political views, you are going to run short of agents.Doc Holliday said:Look if you can overlook all the corruption of the FBI, Clinton and so on...then you should have ZERO faith that they will do anything to Trump if you actually believe there isn't a political bias in our government and our FBI.Booray said:Trump's entire "I can't obstruct justice" argument is built on the idea that as our political leader he can do whatever he wants re: law enforcement. So if you are saying no, you don't want "political bias" in government, you have to say that Trump can obstruct justice regardless of being the President. Are you willing to say that?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Law enforcement should not be politically biased. The inspector general's report, which you had touted for weeks says, guess what: this law enforcement investigation was not politically biased. So what is your point?
Does this sound normal at all to you?
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
PG 416: ATTY 2 - "I NEVER REALLY LIKED THE REPUBLIC ANYWAY", "I HAVE INITIATED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC"
[url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download][/url]https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/downloadQuote:
Quote:
Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias. The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey's October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated:
13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: "As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?"
15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: "I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic's destruction"
How about this?Booray said:It sounds very normal. FBI employees are not required to ignore what is happening in the country they are serving. Plenty of people have had the same water cooler discussions. If you want to find agents who have no political views, you are going to run short of agents.Doc Holliday said:Look if you can overlook all the corruption of the FBI, Clinton and so on...then you should have ZERO faith that they will do anything to Trump if you actually believe there isn't a political bias in our government and our FBI.Booray said:Trump's entire "I can't obstruct justice" argument is built on the idea that as our political leader he can do whatever he wants re: law enforcement. So if you are saying no, you don't want "political bias" in government, you have to say that Trump can obstruct justice regardless of being the President. Are you willing to say that?Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
Law enforcement should not be politically biased. The inspector general's report, which you had touted for weeks says, guess what: this law enforcement investigation was not politically biased. So what is your point?
Does this sound normal at all to you?
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
PG 416: ATTY 2 - "I NEVER REALLY LIKED THE REPUBLIC ANYWAY", "I HAVE INITIATED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC"
[url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download][/url]https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/downloadQuote:
Quote:
Among the general discussion of political issues by FBI Attorney 2, we identified three instant message exchanges that raised concerns of potential bias. The first of these exchanges was on October 28, 2016, shortly after Comey's October 28 letter to Congress that effectively announced the reopening of the Midyear investigation. FBI Attorney 2 sent similar messages to four different FBI employees. The timestamps of these messages are included below. The messages stated:
13:44:42, to FBI Employee 1: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
13:44:52, to FBI Employee 2: "I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway."
14:01:52, to FBI Employee 3: "As I have initiated the destruction of the republic.... Would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?"
15:28:50, to FBI Employee 4: "I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic's destruction"
Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
The fact that there is never an attempt to answer your question is itself the answer. If logic prevails, the answer is obvious.Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
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.Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
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.
We will always live under a govt that has a political bias. Generally that bias has been conservative. The way police and other law enforcement treat black and brown people compared with everyone else and the ease with which law enforcement can confiscate your money and other property are two indicators that whatever "deep state" there is ain't liberal.Doc Holliday said:Do you want to live under a government that has a political bias? Yes or No?Booray said:Tin Foil is not a good look. The logic of my third paragraph is simple and supported by the report's conclusion. If the FBI/DOJ was politically biased towards Clinton, it sure did not act that way. The IG--who all you wing nuts had put your faith in--says there were problems of execution, but not bias.riflebear said:LOL - read the tweets in this thread because it basically destroys your 3rd paragraph. I'm guessing you didn't read all the IG report because it's impossible to come to your conclusion if you did.Booray said: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.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.
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 display. But there was no deep state plot to save Hillary and dump Trump. If there were, 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?
Logic is not that hard. But by all means lets keep relitigating something that happened six years ago and has nothing to do with anyone in office today. Maybe we can generate a misdemeanor charge out of it.
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.Sam Lowry said:I think I answered your question. The Russia investigation was no secret. It was public knowledge at least six weeks before the election.Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
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.
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.
Do you hope Trump is impeached and removed from office?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.Sam Lowry said:I think I answered your question. The Russia investigation was no secret. It was public knowledge at least six weeks before the election.Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No cuz I think Pence would be worseDoc Holliday said:Do you hope Trump is impeached and removed from office?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.Sam Lowry said:I think I answered your question. The Russia investigation was no secret. It was public knowledge at least six weeks before the election.Booray said:Sam Lowry said: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.Booray said: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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
