Damning Evidence the Fix Was In on the Clinton ‘Investigation’

[Ric Flair]

5 hours ago, Landlord said:

I think there's actually some legitimate threads of stinkiness being referenced in that article. Anyone who thinks that Clinton didn't have powerful influence over/with plenty of government officials all across D.C. is hopefully naive. This email thing is so dumb and such a non-story to me that I can't recall the details, but there does seem to be some incredibly dirty laundry surrounding her and Bill. 

 

That being said, Real Clear Investigations and Paul Sperry both very clearly have notable and strong conservative leanings and bias, as well as sensationalistic and emotionally loaded headlines/editorial decisions. 

 

Here's one thing he said that I agree with though:

 

 

 

Imagine if you took someone like Mueller and turned him loose on the Clintons....with unlimited manpower, time, and resources. What kind of dirt do you think he would dig up about Bill’s affairs, their marraige, their goofy and crooked business dealings, their selling of influence, and their fraud of an Organization?

[commando]

39 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Imagine if you took someone like Mueller and turned him loose on the Clintons....with unlimited manpower, time, and resources. What kind of dirt do you think he would dig up about Bill’s affairs, their marraige, their goofy and crooked business dealings, their selling of influence, and their fraud of an Organization?

the clintons have had republicans running investigations on them ever since bill was a itch in his daddys pants. now that the republicans control every seat of power in the united states and most of the deep state do you think they will finally get them?

[Ulty]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Imagine if you took someone like Mueller and turned him loose on the Clintons....with unlimited manpower, time, and resources. What kind of dirt do you think he would dig up about Bill’s affairs, their marraige, their goofy and crooked business dealings, their selling of influence, and their fraud of an Organization?

 

That doesn’t require any imagination at all. The “someone like Mueller” you referenced was named Kenneth Starr, and we’ve already gone through this scenario.

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, commando said:

the clintons have had republicans running investigations on them ever since bill was a itch in his daddys pants. now that the republicans control every seat of power in the united states and most of the deep state do you think they will finally get them?

 

Maybe not. There are two main divides in politics now...Republican vs. Democrat and Establishment vs. Populist. The latter seems to be stronger than the former.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Imagine if you took someone like Mueller and turned him loose on the Clintons....with unlimited manpower, time, and resources. What kind of dirt do you think he would dig up about Bill’s affairs, their marraige, their goofy and crooked business dealings, their selling of influence, and their fraud of an Organization?

 

You'd have year after year after year of ongoing GOP investigations, launched by a 20 year old low stakes land deal in Arkansas while Clinton was governor, which was going absolutely nowhere until they found a woman willing to rat out an intern who was having consensual sex with the President, completely unrelated to the original probe and resulting in no criminal indictments. 

 

Hillary Clinton's emails and personal ethics may still be murky, but since lifelong Republican James Comey's announcement of a reopened FBI investigation days before the election dropped Hillary Clinton from 8 points ahead to dead even, very likely electing Donald Trump President, I'm not sure this grander conspiracy makes sense.

 

It's possible that the entire intelligence community didn't particularly love Hillary Clinton, but recognized that Donald Trump was legitimately dangerous, and those suspicions have proven accurate. 

 

 

[knapplc]

For going on two years Republicans have controlled the House & the Senate, along with the White House.

 

Let's assume for a second that every accusation in the OP is true. Or at least, POSSIBLY true.

 

Those things warrant investigation.  Anyone who admires the rule of law should agree with that.

 

So why haven't the Republicans appointed a special counsel like Mueller to investigate these things?

[Danny Bateman]

14 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

No one thought Trump would win. No one thought he had a chance. The conspiracy was to protect Hillary, who they assumed would be President. When Trumo was elected, the goal became to discredit him, interfere with his agenda, and try to remove him.

 

Did you know that most of the charges against Manafort were examined by prosecutors years ago, who declined to prosecute. Then once Trump was elected, Mueller and Co. decided he needed to go to jail over them. I wonder why that was? 

 

First bolded is just absolutely wrong. The word conspiracy is silly. The goal was to protect themselves (Comey and the FBI). He assumed Clinton would win, and knew Republicans were gearing up for four years of investigations and outright character assassination against her and anyone else in their way. He didn't want himself or the FBI to be dragged into that be being accused of burying the Clinton news. Thus, he announced it. To say he announced he was reopening an investigation into her less than two weeks before the election just makes absolutely no sense.

 

Second bolded: Because he broke the law. Nobody is losing an ounce of sleep for a felt cheating on his taxes to protect his blood money like Manafort.

 

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

10 hours ago, Landlord said:

I think there's actually some legitimate threads of stinkiness being referenced in that article. Anyone who thinks that Clinton didn't have powerful influence over/with plenty of government officials all across D.C. is hopefully naive. This email thing is so dumb and such a non-story to me that I can't recall the details, but there does seem to be some incredibly dirty laundry surrounding her and Bill. 

 

That being said, Real Clear Investigations and Paul Sperry both very clearly have notable and strong conservative leanings and bias, as well as sensationalistic and emotionally loaded headlines/editorial decisions. 

 

Here's one thing he said that I agree with though:

 

 

 

I think it's a legit source (RealClearPolitics is a rather well-known politics website that aggregates news & tracks polls, and this is their newly-christened investigative unit) but you're right about the bias. Source below lists them as center-right but this is a pretty heavy-handed article given the subject matter. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

 

I thought they did a pretty good job reporting the facts, they just inserted some pretty obviously loaded language surrounding the "bad guys" in the article. The agenda is pretty clear.

 

I'd also point out the article seems pretty heavily skewed towards the FBI field office view of the matter, which it rightly points out is in the tank for Giuliani and hates Clinton.

[Danny Bateman]

33 minutes ago, knapplc said:

So why haven't the Republicans appointed a special counsel like Mueller to investigate these things?

 

That raging liberal Clinton lackey and probable pizza enthusiast/child abuser Jeff Sessions has purposely slapped down such a move to protect them!

[LumberJackSker]

Unless your source is QAnon its not valid. 

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Source below lists them as center-right but this is a pretty heavy-handed article given the subject matter. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

 

 

Yeah, and 40% of user votes rate them as extreme right, with 34% voting them as right. I don't even necessarily have a problem with people sourcing conservative outlets in principle, but when one person only unapologetically uses conservative sources, and generally doesn't really respond towards more neutral or non-partisan sources that refute those claims, then it's pretty natural to start reducing that person's claims on the spot.

[Moiraine]

27 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Yeah, and 40% of user votes rate them as extreme right, with 34% voting them as right. I don't even necessarily have a problem with people sourcing conservative outlets in principle, but when one person only unapologetically uses conservative sources, and generally doesn't really respond towards more neutral or non-partisan sources that refute those claims, then it's pretty natural to start reducing that person's claims on the spot.

 

If you peruse what this writer has written, it's naturally and likely correct to not take the article seriously. What it looks like to me is he pieced together a few legitimate complaints and then made up a story that makes everything sound like one huge deep state conspiracy. That's basically what he seems to be; a storyteller.

[Ric Flair]

7 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

Yeah, and 40% of user votes rate them as extreme right, with 34% voting them as right. I don't even necessarily have a problem with people sourcing conservative outlets in principle, but when one person only unapologetically uses conservative sources, and generally doesn't really respond towards more neutral or non-partisan sources that refute those claims, then it's pretty natural to start reducing that person's claims on the spot.

 

Liberal sources haven’t bothered to investigate Clinton or Obama, and did their absolute best to ignore every scandal that developed during Obama’s Presidency. That makes it impossible (or close to it) to find a liberal source that tells what really happened during the Obama years. Since liberals dismiss any reporting from any source they see as right-leaning, that leaves them free to play ostrich and simply bury their heads in the sand.

[Landlord]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Liberal sources haven’t bothered to investigate Clinton or Obama, and did their absolute best to ignore every scandal that developed during Obama’s Presidency. That makes it impossible (or close to it) to find a liberal source that tells what really happened during the Obama years. Since liberals dismiss any reporting from any source they see as right-leaning, that leaves them free to play ostrich and simply bury their heads in the sand.

 

There are such things as non-partisan and neutral sources, and even if you disagree with that claim, there is such thing as an aggregate of mixed sources which paints a more accurate picture than listening to any one source. 

 

As far as liberal sources treatment of Obama, I don't know what 'scandals' you're trying to refer to, but there's plenty of liberal criticism that has been directed towards Obama.

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-does-the-media-go-easy-on-barack-obama/272807/

 

On various subjects that ought to trigger automatic scrutiny from any adversarial press outlet, like apparent violations of federal law, actions that directly contradict a campaign promise, aggressive retaliation against whistleblowers, and unprecedented assertions of secrecy, establishment outlets like The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, along with avowedly liberal publications like Salon, Mother Jones, and The Guardian, did far more to uncover facts, raise awareness, and publish criticism of Obama than the conservative media.

To be sure, there was a schizophrenia to the coverage in some of these publications. The New Yorker must have dedicated hundreds of thousands of dollars to top-flight journalism about various Obama Administration transgressions against civil liberties, the rule of law, and good government. Its editors presumably submitted some of those stories for National Magazine Awards. The same can be said for The New York Times and the Pulitzer Prizes. Yet pre-election editorials in those same publications didn't merely posit that Obama was the lesser of two evils -- they left painstakingly reported transgressions unmentioned, as if they weren't relevant, and issued glowing endorsements that read as if Obama is an especially noble president.

 

...

 

But when it comes to holding Obama accountable for those unusually consequential, unchecked acts, the conservative media is far inferior, partly because of the time it wastes on birtherism, Kenyan anti-colonialism, and a National Review contributor's theory that Obama is allied with our Islamist enemy in a "grand jihad" against America; but mostly because much of the conservative movement behaves as if the War on Terrorism confers unlimited power to spy without warrants, to violate the War Powers Resolution, to extra-judicially kill American citizens, and to treat even the legal justification for executive branch actions as if they're state secrets. On all those questions, they defer to the Obama Administration.

If "liberal media bias" explains the failure to challenge Obama adequately, why do center-left publications challenge him more on a whole range of national-security topics than center-right publications? Why are avowedly leftist publications often more adversarial than center-left ones?

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2008/09/18/heres-looking-at-you-kid

 

"If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn't very much. Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.

He was a staunch backer of Richard Daley, who as mayor failed to stem the corruption that has made Chicago one of America's most notorious cities. Nor did he lift a finger against John Stroger and his son Todd, who succeeded his father as president of Cook County's Board of Commissioners shortly before Stroger senior died last January. Cook County, where Chicago is located, has been extensively criticised for corrupt practices by a federally appointed judge, Julia Nowicki."

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.thestreet.com/story/10475705/1/promises-promises-obama-rhetoric-reality-clash.html

 

"(AP News) Barack Obama's optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.
In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That's happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers' pet projects."

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

 

"The rest of Obama's policy framework looks very different when you wake up from the dream state pushed by cable news. Obama's history of personal use of illegal narcotics, combined with his escalation of the war on medical marijuana (despite declining support for the drug war in the Democratic caucus), shows both a personal hypocrisy and destructive cynicism that we should decry in anyone, let alone an important policymaker who helps keep a half a million people in jail for participating in a legitimate economy outlawed by the drug warrior industry. But it makes sense once you realize that his policy architecture coheres with a Romney-like philosophy that there is one set of rules for the little people, and another for the important people."

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/cornell-west-obama-revolutionary-mandela-180715195817422.html

 

"Former US president Barack Obama will deliver the Nelson Mandela annual lecture in Johannesburg on Tuesday.

His invitation to speak has drawn widespread criticism from South Africa's civil society who say Obama's record as president deems him unworthy of the honour of speaking at the late anti-apartheid icon's birth centennial.

Activists, such as the Cage Africa advocacy group, say Obama is responsible for the expansion of military operations on the continent, the murder of hundreds of civilians through the use of drones, and the dismantling of Libya. The accusations levelled at Obama are not new. 

The former president has long been accused of neglecting to address poverty in the US, failing to hold Wall Street and the economic elite accountable, and expanding the US imperial footprint across the globe."

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/the-liberal-critique-of-obama-judging-the-president-by-his-own-standards/249050/

 

"If Obama's defenders want to take on the strongest arguments against the president -- or the most compelling case for liberal disillusionment -- the best place to begin is Lessig's apt critique, or else the critiques that candidate Obama would make of the administration President Obama has run. "

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/why-do-liberals-keep-sanitizing-the-obama-story/248890/

 

"When I pleaded with liberals to stop ignoring President Obama's failures on civil liberties, foreign policy, and the separation of powers, treating them as if they didn't even merit a mention, the quintessential example of the troubling phenomenon hadn't yet been published. Now it has. In New York, one of America's premier magazines, Jonathan Chait, a sharp, experienced political writer, has penned a 5,000 word essay purporting to defend the president's first term. It is aimed at liberal critics who, in Chait's telling, naively expected too much."

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/12/17/251983136/the-year-of-disappointing-the-liberal-base-obama-2013

 

"It's been a long, disappointing year for many of President Obama's most ardent supporters.

From drones and Syria to immigration and the Keystone XL pipeline, the list of issues on which the president has induced frustration and disillusionment is not a short one.

And fallout from that restive base is reflected in Obama's dismal year-end poll numbers.

His approval rating has sunk to a low point, trust in his ability to do the job has eroded, and, as a new Washington Post poll found, he has lost ground among "key members of his winning electoral coalition" — women, liberals and younger voters."

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-holds-fire-but-media-doesnt-096839

 

President Barack Obama is damaging his presidency, weakening America’s standing in the world, and displaying “inexplicable” incompetence.

The media figure making those accusations isn’t Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer or Glenn Beck. The critic doesn’t host a right-wing talk show, anchor a Fox News program, or write for the pages of the Weekly Standard. In fact, he’s not even a conservative.

It’s Joe Klein, the Time Magazine political columnist. “Obama has lost some serious altitude: In the world, with the Congress, and most importantly with the American people,” Klein, a veteran journalist and political moderate, told POLITICO.

 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2009/09/14/media-coverage-of-obama-grows-more-negative

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE media's crush on President Obama? In the second 100 days of his administration, the majority of press coverage was bad, with the president's policy proposals receiving more criticism than praise from reporters. According to a study by researchers at George Mason and Chapman universities, 59 percent of press coverage was positive during Obama's first 100 days in office, but then it dipped to 43 percent from May through mid-August. 

 

 

 

 

[ZRod]

7 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Liberal sources haven’t bothered to investigate Clinton or Obama, and did their absolute best to ignore every scandal that developed during Obama’s Presidency. That makes it impossible (or close to it) to find a liberal source that tells what really happened during the Obama years. Since liberals dismiss any reporting from any source they see as right-leaning, that leaves them free to play ostrich and simply bury their heads in the sand.

 

So if I google Bengahzi, Fast and Furious, IRS and conservative groups you're telling me I won't find in-depth articles and investigations from NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Huffpo, New York Times, Wa Po, Vox, etc? That sir is a bunch of bovine excrement, you are completely delusional. Just googling Bengahzi brings up articles from those liberal rags, with unbiased and in-depth reporting. One is literally a transcript of the hearing. You can't get more factual than that.

 

https://www.vox.com/cards/benghazi-ambassador-stevens-attack/benghazi-basics

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/index.html&ved=2ahUKEwjSwviNzIrdAhXF24MKHUA0DXUQjjgwHnoECAEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mj-oajYE2ndKkj7GJSBpf

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/politics/benghazi-trial-cia-base-attack.amp.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9109e8c9e7a4