Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ric Flair

Comey, McCabe, Brennan, and Deep State Corruption

Recommended Posts

 

Great column. Time to drain the swamp.

 

Quote

Whether you are a Democrat who can’t stand Trump, a Hillary Clintonsupporter who feels robbed by Comey, or a Trump supporter, any use of wiretapping and vast prosecutorial machinery against our political campaigns and sitting presidents always has to be viewed skeptically and should meet the highest standards of conduct and impartiality. The post-election actions of these former officials makes suspect their actions as officials.

 

Hillary’s Pollster on the Deep State

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol....DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE DEEP STATE.....oh...and have i said DEEP STATE yet?

Edited by commando
  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "deep state" has come to mean any government official or agency that doesn't adhere to the policies or beliefs of the current administration.  Such officials have existed in government throughout America's ever-changing political history.  It's only now that we have a man in the White House who demands loyalty and is paranoid about anyone not willing to kiss his ring that the term "deep state" has entered the public's vernacular.

 

It's not that it didn't exist under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush & Obama.  It's that they weren't scared of it.  Trump is, and here we are.

  • Plus1 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

The term "deep state" has come to mean any government official or agency that doesn't adhere to the policies or beliefs of the current administration.  Such officials have existed in government throughout America's ever-changing political history.  It's only now that we have a man in the White House who demands loyalty and is paranoid about anyone not willing to kiss his ring that the term "deep state" has entered the public's vernacular.

 

It's not that it didn't exist under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush & Obama.  It's that they weren't scared of it.  Trump is, and here we are.

 

Yeah, every single time I hear the term "deep state" I think, well that's just someone or an organization (like the State Department, CIA, NSA, EPA, et al) that puts their mission of protecting the USA ahead of the whims of a "president" who is mentally unstable, teetering on the brink of tyrannical madness, and despotism.

 

Trumps Manical Ego

 

And you're right, all those institutions (the "deep state") existed long before Trump.  The difference is, all previous presidents knew that their job would be easier if they worked with those institutions, not against.

 

And @Ric Flair, I seem to remember Trump on the campaign trail saying he was, "...going to drain the swamp."  Not only has he NOT drained the swamp, he's quite possibly made it even deeper, murkier, and more of a cesspool than it was previously.

 

 

Edited by Making Chimichangas
Fix a typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "deep state" is a reflection of the paranoid, desperate attempts at excusing away the failings and quite obvious flaws of the man sitting in the Oval Office. It's curious we've never heard much, if any, complaining coming from conservatives or the media figures supporting them until they put the most incompetent, openly corrupt leader we've ever seen in office. So now, instead of addressing his bad behavior, it's miraculously become a deep state problem that's destroying the country.

 

No amount of Op Eds from sympathetic people is going to change my mind on this.

 

I do agree heartily, though - drain the swamp. Let's get Trump and his pathetic circle of toadies and corrupt underlings out of Washington ASAP.

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "deep state" is an interesting debate:

 

"California contains the Badwater Basin in Death Valley, at 279 feet (85 m) below sea level, the lowest point in the United States; while Florida has the lowest high point, and Delaware has the lowest mean elevation.Florida is also the flattest state, with the smallest difference between its highest and lowest points."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_elevation

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Hillary Clinton’s pollster describing what he sees as a big problem. Others from across the political specteum agree with him. But the inane responses posted here show the difficulty of having a substantive discussion here. Unless whatever is posted is some drivel bashing Trump for being some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil, no one is interested.

 

#SAD

 

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#SAD.  DEEP STATE.  FAKE NEWS.   any of those far right wing nut job catchphrases instantly defiles any opinions attached to them.  

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Who else is watching american idol in anticipation of Comey?

 

:snacks::snacks::snacks:

 

(Not really an American Idol guy, tbh. I mostly despise all reality TV.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

This is Hillary Clinton’s pollster describing what he sees as a big problem. Others from across the political specteum agree with him. But the inane responses posted here show the difficulty of having a substantive discussion here. Unless whatever is posted is some drivel bashing Trump for being some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil, no one is interested.

 

#SAD

 

 

Your constant use of propaganda catch phrases like “liberal main stream media”....which basically means anyone but Foxnews....and “deep state” make it difficult to take your posts seriously. 

 

These terms are used for:

 

liberal main stream media = only watch fox news because that’s the only place you woll get the truth. 

 

Deep State = used to delegitimize anyone in the government who actually knows what is going on and opposes trump on anything from policy to pointing out his corruption.  

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

But the inane responses posted here show the difficulty of having a substantive discussion here. Unless whatever is posted is some drivel bashing Trump for being some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil, no one is interested.

I think there's an awareness of your point here, so few even bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I think there's an awareness of your point here, so few even bother.

We are all well aware....

 

Why was "deep state" not an issue the past 16 years?

Why was "fake" media not an issue the past 16 years?

Why was "transgender in the military" not an issue the past 16 years?

Why was "insert Trump 'tagline here' not an issue the past 16 years?

 

Trump is an entertainer.  Some people think he is the hero, some think he is the heel.  Some think his story is a comedy, some a tragedy, some an "odyssey".  This man has made a political career of making something out of nothing, for better or worse.  The sad thing is, it is affecting our citizens and especially our youth.

 

I was recently out of town with some students and we were grabbing a bite to eat.  The TV in the dining room had up the illustration from Hannity about the "Mueller Crime Family" that included pictures of Mueller, Comey, and others.  This kid, a high school senior, mumbled about those "tricky dems".  I said, "most of the people on that graphic are Republican..." His response was something along the lines of this thread and I told him it was okay to hold whatever opinion he wanted, as long as it was at least based on fact.  Calling Mueller and Comey radical, liberal, antagonist really doesn't fit reality.  Sorry....

 

 

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I think there's an awareness of your point here, so few even bother.

As we continue to confirm our own bias with arguments, I'm sure Ric would appreciate your support.  Please add to the thread if you can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

This is Hillary Clinton’s pollster describing what he sees as a big problem. Others from across the political specteum agree with him. But the inane responses posted here show the difficulty of having a substantive discussion here. Unless whatever is posted is some drivel bashing Trump for being some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil, no one is interested.

 

#SAD

 

 

 

If you want to talk about the entrenched Washingron DC establishment, do that. 

 

Trump views ANYONE who opposes or questions him as an enemy.  If you can't see how that's a problem then...:dunno

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After taking the time to read the article in the OP, it's pretty clear this is - sit down - yet another conspiracy theory pushed by yet another conspiracy theorist.  Shocking that this is the kind of nonsense peddled by the OP. Again.

 

But wait!  This was produced by a "Clinton Pollster!" It can't be a right-wing conspiracy.  Well, whatever Mr. Penn's connection with Bill Clinton 20 years ago, he's gone off the rails with this kind of thing since.  Having worked with Clinton in the 1990s apparently means he's completely legitimate for the purposes of a thread like this to some people.  Weird how that works.

 

Here's an analysis of Penn's use of push polls, and you're going to be shocked at the content of the poll...

 

The Harvard-Harris Poll Scam

 

All these laments that people aren't discussing the OP fall on deaf ears when the content of the OP is clearly political hackery.  And when that's all we're getting from a certain source in thread after thread, there's a credibility question.

 

That's not the fault of the people who respond to these threads. That's the OP's problem, and the best way for the OP to fix it is to stop posting nonsense like this. 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone read the IG report? Pretty damning stuff. 

 

Tune into the Senate hearings tomorrow. Try watching them for yourselves for a change. When you rely on MSNBC hosts to interpret the news for you and then I have to constantly educate you about what actually happened, it gets embarrassing.

 

:D

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really all that damning. Also not really much we didn't know already. Certainly some things worth admonishing, though.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Not really all that damning. Also not really much we didn't know already. Certainly some things worth admonishing, though.

 

It proves that the investigators leading the investigation had a clear political bias for Clinton and against Trump.

 

Those same investigators were openly discussing how they could use the investigation to prevent him from becoming President.

 

But by allmeans, keep insisting there is nothing to see here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Those same investigators were openly discussing how they could use the investigation to prevent him from becoming President.

 


What is this referring to? I'm not aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A top FBI agent involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails told a colleague in 2016 that “we’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president, according to the Justice Department’s inspector general.

 

The explosive comment came during an exchange of text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in August 2016, IG Michael Horowitz’s report revealed Thursday.

 

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

 

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/texts-reveal-disgraced-fbi-agent-told-lover-well-stop-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I guess it makes sense that I was unaware of what you were referring to, as any reasonable reading of that quote would not take it to such a silly conclusion as, "...openly discussing how they could use the investigation to prevent him from becoming President."

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Landlord said:

Ah, I guess it makes sense that I was unaware of what you were referring to, as any reasonable reading of that quote would not take it to such a silly conclusion as, "...openly discussing how they could use the investigation to prevent him from becoming President."

 

I’m not sure how that exchange can be interpreted differently. This is the main FBI investigator and his FBI lawyer girlfriend. She expresses her horror at the possibility that Trump could be President and seeks reassurance from Strok that will never happen. Strok assures her that Trump will never be President because:

 

”WE’LL STOP IT.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We'll stop it."

 

 

Who is the we being referenced? Just him and her? The entire FBI? Maybe the entire investigative team? Maybe all of America? Maybe Democrats?

 

How do they say they'll stop it? Well, they don't. But you said they were discussing how they would prevent Trump from winning.

 

Is it clear whether the act of stopping will be done within the capacities of their jobs as government employees, vs just in their own personal lives as private citizens? No, it isn't.

 

Are we able to satisfactorily discern any amounts of humor, hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. that would change the context of the already entirely vague statement? Nope, not really.

 

This is why people can't take you seriously. You actually bring up really good points and topics of conversation, occasionally, but they're always in between these ridiculous allegations and conclusions that are based on virtually nothing in terms of actual evidence.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read more about those messages here.

 

Not a good look for Strzok. But nonetheless the report found no evidence it influenced his work. In fact, the FBI handling of the investigation was carried out in such a way that it helped Trump & hurt Clinton:

 

Quote

But a nearly two-year investigation by the Justice Department's watchdog found no evidence that those private sentiments expressed by Strzok influenced his work.
 

"The report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper consideration actually impacting the investigation under review," Wray said.

 

What's more, Trump is completely ignoring the entire reason the Justice Department inspector general wrote this report: to look at whether the FBI mishandled the Clinton email investigation, not the Russia probe.
 

The inspector general report is pretty clear on that front. It found that former FBI director James B. Comey wasn't biased, but he made judgment calls during the campaign that negatively affected Clinton, such as announcing the end of the investigation but criticizing her without first going up the chain of command, and announcing that he was reopening the investigation days before the election.

"There's nothing in the report which says the FBI was biased in favor of Clinton," Cornell Law School Vice Dean Jens David Ohlin said. "If anything, it's the opposite. The FBI handled the investigation in a way that was very problematic for Clinton and complicated her life immensely."

Trump is factually stretching and even factually abusing a report to benefit himself politically: Personal partisanship does not automatically equal professional bias. And if anything, the FBI hurt Clinton's electoral chances, not his.


Strzok was also removed immediately from the Mueller investigation as soon as his private sentiments toward Trump became known. And he's offering to testify willingly for House Judiciary Committee.

 

But we also learned other new things recently. During the election, there were rumors swirling that the New York FBI field office, with deep ties to Rudy Giuliani, had a deep anti-Clinton bias. This led to worries they were going to improperly handle info, i.e., leak it to Rudy to help the Trump camp.

 

Devine Nunes admitted last night, apparently accidentally, that in late September of 2016 "good FBI agents" alerted him that they had found new emails pertinent to Clinton on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Adam Schiff, Nunes' Democratic counterpart on the House Intel Committee, was not made aware of this.

 

 

Here's Rudy himself on Fox News on October 26th, making a not so subtle reference to more Clinton news coming down the pipe. He's downright giddy.

 

 

When did the FBI (Comey) officially notify Congress they had found new emails on Weiner's laptop? October 28th, 2016.

 

Long before that time, both Nunes & Rudy knew and had apparently set their own machinations in motion. It's dirty campaigning using info they shouldn't have had, but it absolutely worked. It's not surprising, given this current crop of Republicans value power above everything else.

 

It's pretty easy to see who benefitted & who got hosed here. This all hurt Clinton & helped Trump. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Landlord said:

"We'll stop it."

 

 

Who is the we being referenced? Just him and her? The entire FBI? Maybe the entire investigative team? Maybe all of America? Maybe Democrats?

 

How do they say they'll stop it? Well, they don't. But you said they were discussing how they would prevent Trump from winning.

 

Is it clear whether the act of stopping will be done within the capacities of their jobs as government employees, vs just in their own personal lives as private citizens? No, it isn't.

 

Are we able to satisfactorily discern any amounts of humor, hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. that would change the context of the already entirely vague statement? Nope, not really.

 

This is why people can't take you seriously. You actually bring up really good points and topics of conversation, occasionally, but they're always in between these ridiculous allegations and conclusions that are based on virtually nothing in terms of actual evidence.

 

Now you’re quibbling over who “we” is? 

 

Really? You don’t find that a little absurd? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

You can read more about those messages here.

 

Not a good look for Strzok. But nonetheless the report found no evidence it influenced his work. In fact, the FBI handling of the investigation was carried out in such a way that it helped Trump & hurt Clinton:

 


Strzok was also removed immediately from the Mueller investigation as soon as his private sentiments toward Trump became known. And he's offering to testify willingly for House Judiciary Committee.

 

But we also learned other new things recently. During the election, there were rumors swirling that the New York FBI field office, with deep ties to Rudy Giuliani, had a deep anti-Clinton bias. This led to worries they were going to improperly handle info, i.e., leak it to Rudy to help the Trump camp.

 

Devine Nunes admitted last night, apparently accidentally, that in late September of 2016 "good FBI agents" alerted him that they had found new emails pertinent to Clinton on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Adam Schiff, Nunes' Democratic counterpart on the House Intel Committee, was not made aware of this.

 

 

Here's Rudy himself on Fox News on October 26th, making a not so subtle reference to more Clinton news coming down the pipe. He's downright giddy.

 

 

When did the FBI (Comey) officially notify Congress they had found new emails on Weiner's laptop? October 28th, 2016.

 

Long before that time, both Nunes & Rudy knew and had apparently set their own machinations in motion. It's dirty campaigning using info they shouldn't have had, but it absolutely worked. It's not surprising, given this current crop of Republicans value power above everything else.

 

It's pretty easy to see who benefitted & who got hosed here. This all hurt Clinton & helped Trump. 

 

It seems McCabe and others hid the Weiner emails, fearing what was there, and hoping to keep from revealing them until after the election.

 

Comey, assuming Hillary would win as it wasn’t really in doubt, feared that if the emails came out after a Hillary election, they would damage her legitimacy. He also had promised Comgress that he would notify them of any new news on that front. Sp when he got wind, he sprung into action to protect the FBI’s reputation and his own. Let’s be honest...Comey’s ‘higher loyalty’ has always been to himself.

 

So Hillary should have been charged and they did her a favor by excusing her crimes. McCabe should have revealed the Weiner emails immediately, thought he was helping Hillary, and inadvertently hurt her by delaying things until so close to the election. And Comey, who assumed Hillary’s election was a sure thing and wanted it to be legitimate, was trying to help her but ended up hurting her.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

It seems McCabe and others hid the Weiner emails, fearing what was there, and hoping to keep from revealing them until after the election.

 

Comey, assuming Hillary would win as it wasn’t really in doubt, feared that if the emails came out after a Hillary election, they would damage her legitimacy. He also had promised Comgress that he would notify them of any new news on that front. Sp when he got wind, he sprung into action to protect the FBI’s reputation and his own. Let’s be honest...Comey’s ‘higher loyalty’ has always been to himself.

 

So Hillary should have been charged and they did her a favor by excusing her crimes. McCabe should have revealed the Weiner emails immediately, thought he was helping Hillary, and inadvertently hurt her by delaying things until so close to the election. And Comey, who assumed Hillary’s election was a sure thing and wanted it to be legitimate, was trying to help her but ended up hurting her.

 

They didn't hide them because they were trying to help or protect anyone. They didn't disclose them because that FBI policy. That's how investigations are supposed to work.

Personally I think Comey erred badly in his judgment (the IG report said as much) but that he chose to disclose the new emails because A) he told Congress he would and B) he was afraid of what Congressional Republicans would do when Clinton won & found out he didn't disclose them prior to the election. I can already envision the claims that he threw the election to her now. It's not hard because many Dems (voters, not politicians) believe he threw the election to Trump by telling an obvious partisan hack like Chaffetz, who immediately leaked the news. And they may be right.

What charges should she have been brought up on? What crimes were they excusing? You're doing that thing again where you get a lot of the facts right but mix in unfounded, ridiculous claims as well.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

They didn't hide them because they were trying to help or protect anyone. They didn't disclose them because that FBI policy. That's how investigations are supposed to work.

Personally I think Comey erred badly in his judgment (the IG report said as much) but that he chose to disclose the new emails because A) he told Congress he would and B) he was afraid of what Congressional Republicans would do when Clinton won & found out he didn't disclose them prior to the election. I can already envision the claims that he threw the election to her now. It's not hard because many Dems (voters, not politicians) believe he threw the election to Trump by telling an obvious partisan hack like Chaffetz, who immediately leaked the news. And they may be right.

What charges should she have been brought up on? What crimes were they excusing? You're doing that thing again where you get a lot of the facts right but mix in unfounded, ridiculous claims as well.

 

She intentionally moved classified and top secret documents and information from a secure email system to an unsecure email system. As a result, those national secrets were compromised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

She intentionally moved classified and top secret documents and information from a secure email system to an unsecure email system. As a result, those national secrets were compromised. 

 

Trump shared classified info with Russians in the Oval. It mortified an ally and put intel sources at risk.

 

He continues to use an unsecured Android that likely exposes national security information as well.

 

At this point, the government has decided it's no BFD.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Now you’re quibbling over who “we” is? 

 

Really? You don’t find that a little absurd? 

 

 

When you want to make claims as audacious as the ones you're making, then no, that's not even a little bit absurd.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, guys, guys. Why can't you just believe everyone is out to get Trump, and they were so out to get him that they forgot to stop him from getting elected and accidentally damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign? It's so logical! #deepstate

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

When you want to make claims as audacious as the ones you're making, then no, that's not even a little bit absurd.

 

His girlfriend was concerned that Trump might get elected. He reassured her that they simply wouldn’t allow that happen. They would stop it from happening. And they were running the investigation.

 

And you see no issue there...amazing.

 

 

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Guys, guys, guys. Why can't you just believe everyone is out to get Trump, and they were so out to get him that they forgot to stop him from getting elected and accidentally damaged Hillary Clinton's campaign? It's so logical! #deepstate

 

It actually is. Read the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

His girlfriend was concerned that Trump might get elected. He reassured her that they simply wouldn’t allow that happen. They would stop it from happening. And they were running the investigation.

 

And you see no issue there...amazing.

 

 

I see hypothetical potential for the possible existence of an issue, which I would want to be further investigated. 

 

And, wouldn't you know it, it was, for over a year, and after that investigation, Trump's hand picked Director of the FBI said...

"The report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper consideration actually impacting the investigation under review,"

 

Amazing.

  • Plus1 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

I see hypothetical potential for the possible existence of an issue, which I would want to be further investigated. 

 

And, wouldn't you know it, it was, for over a year, and after that investigation, Trump's hand picked Director of the FBI said...

"The report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper consideration actually impacting the investigation under review,"

 

Amazing.

 

The didn't find any direct physical or testimonial evidence that the well documented biases affected the charging decisions. All that means is that no one was dumb enough to document they were clearing her because they preferred her to Trump. They didn't write it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The didn't find any direct physical or testimonial evidence that the well documented biases affected the charging decisions. All that means is that no one was dumb enough to document they were clearing her because they preferred her to Trump. They didn't write it down.

 

 

Thank you for admitting that you are making accusations without evidence. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the deep state failed.  They were trying to eliminate a paper trail by using ESP!

 

You're supposedly a college professor, Ric.  Do you ever just stop and look at the info in front of you and say, "huh, maybe Rush is being a bit of a contortionist with the facts..."?

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupid thing about the reaction to the text is that they likely thought their investigation was what would stop him from becoming president, if what they were finding was all true. If a campaign is infiltrated by a foreign government, or worse, the candidate colludes with the foreign government, they should be stopped from being elected. There's no statement about using illegal means to do so.

 

And, to state the obvious again, the FBI didn't so much as let anyone know there was an investigation going on, which might very well have lost the election for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Thank you for admitting that you are making accusations without evidence. 

 

Not at all. I’m pointing out that the evidence, while damning as hell, is also circumstantial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

The stupid thing about the reaction to the text is that they likely thought their investigation was what would stop him from becoming president, if what they were finding was all true. If a campaign is infiltrated by a foreign government, or worse, the candidate colludes with the foreign government, they should be stopped from being elected. There's no statement about using illegal means to do so.

 

And, to state the obvious again, the FBI didn't so much as let anyone know there was an investigation going on, which might very well have lost the election for Trump.

 

A bit semantic, but they did. The New York field office let Congressional Republicans now there was an investigation going on, and it may have cost Clinton the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×