Current Topics
Portland. A Turning Point?
by logtroll
Today at 12:05 AM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by Greger
Yesterday at 11:53 PM
Medications that might help against SARS-CoV-2
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 07:40 AM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by Greger
08/06/20 06:36 PM
What happens if the election doesn't settle due to voting problems?
by pondering_it_all
08/05/20 12:13 AM
Normal Stuff
by pondering_it_all
08/03/20 10:07 PM
A possible solution to rental problems.
by Irked
08/01/20 12:21 AM
Ongoing Slavery
by jgw
07/31/20 05:06 PM
The Departed - 2020
by pondering_it_all
07/29/20 01:33 AM
Seattle had a Riot!
by jgw
07/28/20 06:17 PM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
07/25/20 08:08 PM
Collections
by Greger
07/24/20 11:08 PM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by pondering_it_all
07/24/20 09:35 PM
Deranged Trump supporter suspected in murdering son of judge
by Greger
07/24/20 05:54 PM
What is the purpose of Capitalism?
by logtroll
07/24/20 12:07 PM
Chad Wolf
by pdx rick
07/24/20 03:54 AM
why cities won't be able to stop Trump's secret police
by jgw
07/23/20 07:06 PM
Fox News anchor shared fabricated tweet in attempt to smear AOC
by rporter314
07/22/20 03:11 AM
We have now reached peak Libertarianism - and it is literally killing us
by jgw
07/21/20 07:07 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16977 Topics
301775 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#325565 - 05/11/20 08:10 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: CPWILL]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7240
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Of your list only one person is what people call a liar. The rest are one time cases of possible lying for God only knows what reason, and Perez was ignorant of background information.

Do we want our spies to be transparent in public of assassination programs? I dunno. I think if we try to maintain some semblance of secrecy then we should do that. On the other hand I am for complete transparency ... hang the dirty laundry for disinfecting sunlight.

Of the four mentioned only one instance was referred to DoJ for possible indictment. DoJ did not indict. Gen Flynn was referred to DoJ and they did indict. I think that is the difference you did not mention. Not necessarily a partisan thing.

Quote:
should Trump attempt to do to Biden what Obama officials did to his campaign, and weaponize law enforcement against a political rival
So you believe any campaign which had Russians stumbling all over each other, promoting stolen emails, back channels for ending sanctions, communications with Russian agents for hacked emails, public calls for Russian illegal activities is OK???? Really????

Had Sec Clinton done what Mr trump did, I would hope the FBI would have opened a counter intelligence investigation into her campaign. Talk about a coup!!!! The Russians would have a Manchurian candidate to manipulate and you're ok with it!!!!!!


The other more odious option is to ignore when a political candidate is potentially an agent for a foreign power. If you find that option appealing, then America has already set sail into the maelstrom of ignominy.




Edited by rporter314 (05/11/20 10:56 PM)
Edit Reason: additional remark
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#325577 - 05/11/20 09:20 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: CPWILL]
Hamish Howl Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/21/19
Posts: 608
Loc: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted By: CPWILL

As for completing the corruption of the Justice Department - should Trump attempt to do to Biden what Obama officials did to his campaign, and weaponize law enforcement against a political rival


I just sprayed coffee all over my screen.
_________________________
What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Top
#325610 - 05/12/20 07:37 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: Hamish Howl]
CPWILL Offline
newbie

Registered: 12/26/19
Posts: 423
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: CPWILL

As for completing the corruption of the Justice Department - should Trump attempt to do to Biden what Obama officials did to his campaign, and weaponize law enforcement against a political rival


I just sprayed coffee all over my screen.


Recommend getting that up before it leaks into the keyboard.
_________________________
Winter Is Coming

Top
#325611 - 05/12/20 07:49 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: rporter314]
CPWILL Offline
newbie

Registered: 12/26/19
Posts: 423
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Of your list only one person is what people call a liar. The rest are one time cases of possible lying for God only knows what reason, and Perez was ignorant of background information.


That's an interesting metric. So one person lied under oath and that's bad and makes him a liar, but others just lied under oath for gosh - who knows why - and so therefore that doesn't count Because Reasons.

Quote:
Do we want our spies to be transparent in public of assassination programs?


It is against Executive Order for agencies of the United States government to engage in Assassination, however, counter question: Do you want Executive Branch agencies to remain loyal to the Congress and the Constitution, or should they be able to chuck their responsibilities to the Former (or the latter) when they feel like it's the best way to accomplish the tasks set by the President?

This is an area where a Republic starts to self-destruct. The security forces of this nation must remain accountable to Congress.

Quote:
I dunno. I think if we try to maintain some semblance of secrecy then we should do that. On the other hand I am for complete transparency ... hang the dirty laundry for disinfecting sunlight.

Of the four mentioned only one instance was referred to DoJ for possible indictment. DoJ did not indict. Gen Flynn was referred to DoJ and they did indict. I think that is the difference you did not mention. Not necessarily a partisan thing.


Naturally. After all, one of them was a member of a widely disliked incoming Republican Administration, and, according to officials at the FBI, the plan was to Stop Him. smile

Quote:
Quote:
should Trump attempt to do to Biden what Obama officials did to his campaign, and weaponize law enforcement against a political rival
So you believe any campaign which had Russians stumbling all over each other, promoting stolen emails, back channels for ending sanctions, communications with Russian agents for hacked emails, public calls for Russian illegal activities is OK???? Really????


1. I think what Trump did calling for Russia to hack Hillary's emails was and remains wrong.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear, thanks to released documents, that no one in the Obama administration actually ever had evidence of a Russia Plot within the Trump campaign or administration.

3. It has also been clear for some time that critical actors involved in the investigation were motivated by partisan concerns and goals - that is incredibly dangerous. Setting a precedent of using the awesome power of the U.S. Intelligence and Security institutions against domestic political opponents for political purposes is one of the quickest ways our form of government can self destruct. Recommended Reading.

Quote:
Had Sec Clinton done what Mr trump did, I would hope the FBI would have opened a counter intelligence investigation into her campaign.


Hillary did far worse than joke about Russia hacking her opponents emails.

Quote:
Talk about a coup!!!! The Russians would have a Manchurian candidate to manipulate and you're ok with it!


This was never plausible (really, you think that Vladimir Putin, long-time KGB agent, looked at Donald Trump and thought "Aha! Here is Stable, Well-Reasoned, Intelligent Man Who Is Able To Keep Secret And Who Will Therefore Make Great Asset!"??), and we have since learned, Obama officials knew it at the time that they decided to go after the Trump campaign and incoming administration anyway.


Both these parties are covered in slime.
_________________________
Winter Is Coming

Top
#325624 - 05/13/20 04:08 AM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: CPWILL]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7240
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
So one person lied under oath and that's bad and makes him a liar, but others just lied under oath for gosh - who knows why - and so therefore that doesn't count Because Reasons.
The real point is you made assumptions regarding their guilt. Had you read their responses, it is not clear the 3 lied (in the sense they were intentionally deceptive). Dir Brennan had a history, the rest ... only a single case, which should allow for some latitude in your condemnation.

Quote:
It is against Executive Order for agencies of the United States government to engage in Assassination
I guess you better let Congress know, since I believe you know quite well what the criteria is for targeted killings. I am against such programs but if they exist, and they do, then they should not be aired in public.

Quote:
After all, one of them was a member of a widely disliked incoming Republican Administration, and, according to officials at the FBI, the plan was to Stop Him.
LOL

The Clinton administration was widely disliked ... the Bush administration was widely disliked .... the Obama administration was widely disliked ... and you want to claim there is something different about the Trump administration??? Really????

If there was a "plan" to stop anyone from becoming president, what was that plan? The plan existed solely in Republicans fevered brains. The FBI was torn between a fast thorough investigation before the election or a slow one. The thought was Mr trump would not be elected and therefore a slow approach would suffice.

Russians stumbling all over people associated with the Trump campaign and reports coming in of Russian interference and hacking emails .... and you think the FBI should not have investigated???? They would have been negligent if they hadn't.

Quote:
2. It is becoming increasingly clear, thanks to released documents, that no one in the Obama administration actually ever had evidence of a Russia Plot within the Trump campaign or administration.
No one had to have evidence. My God!!!!! That is precisely what an investigation does. Find out if the Trump campaign was criminally colluding with the Russians. How would you find out if they were if you didn't investigate???? Take the word of a potential Russian Manchurian candidate?????

Quote:
3. It has also been clear for some time that critical actors involved in the investigation were motivated by partisan concerns and goals - that is incredibly dangerous. Setting a precedent of using the awesome power of the U.S. Intelligence and Security institutions against domestic political opponents for political purposes is one of the quickest ways our form of government can self destruct.
Loooook ... just because the target of the investigation was a candidate does not mean the investigation was motivated by partisan concerns. What you are saying is tantamount to never investigate anyone who runs for office, because it would be partisan to do so. Really????? How many times are you going to ignore the Russians or the reports about Russians or getting meetings with Russians or opening back channels with Russians.

If you want an example of an investigation motivated by partisan concerns look no further than what the Trump administration has done. This is in your face and real abuse of office. But somehow I don't think you had that in mind.

Quote:
Hillary did far worse than joke about Russia hacking her opponents emails.
A joke ... really??? and you think that was all. No wonder you don't get it.

I am still waiting to hear what crime this was.

Quote:
we have since learned, Obama officials knew it at the time that they decided to go after the Trump campaign and incoming administration anyway.
They did not know which is precisely why they needed to investigate i.e. to make sure there was not a problem. The Jan 5 meeting the Obama officials were scared shitless Gen Flynn was compromised with the Russians and did not know whether to trust him or anyone else in campaign/transition. So I have to ask again .... how do you go about making a determination something is not true? I hope you don't guess ... or hide your head in sand and hope it is not true .... or simply ask a narcissist to tell the truth.

The investigation was predicated on real concerns the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians based on Russian interaction with campaign, reports regarding hacked emails, and a Russian campaign to help Mr Trump win election. The only way to alleviate those concerns was to investigate. This was not a BS investigation because the FBI did not like Trump's politics or Republican politics or the fact he lies all the time. Perhaps you can alert me to other FBI investigations into political campaigns because certainly the FBI (really??/ .... they are apolitical) doesn't like everyone's but Trumps politics.

Or simply give Mr trump a pass ... after all he is the greatest human to ever live ... just ask him.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#325642 - 05/13/20 06:40 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: rporter314]
CPWILL Offline
newbie

Registered: 12/26/19
Posts: 423
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
So one person lied under oath and that's bad and makes him a liar, but others just lied under oath for gosh - who knows why - and so therefore that doesn't count Because Reasons.
The real point is you made assumptions regarding their guilt. Had you read their responses, it is not clear the 3 lied (in the sense they were intentionally deceptive). Dir Brennan had a history, the rest ... only a single case, which should allow for some latitude in your condemnation.


James Clapper lied under oath to Congress about collecting intelligence against American citizens. Was he prosecuted? Nope.

Andrew McCabe lied to the FBI under oath about leaking information. Was he prosecuted? Nope.

John Brennan, as CIA director, actually went a step further, illegally spying on Congress themselves, having his agents hack into Senate computer systems. Was he prosecuted? Nope.

Obama Administration officials utilized the national security and intelligence agencies to collect on Congress members who opposed the Iran deal, as well as the Press. Was anyone involved prosecuted? Nope.

I mean, I can go on.

Flynn, however, wasn't under oath, and the agents who interviewed him (we now know) didn't actually think he lied to them, though they did (we now know) lie to him about the nature of their investigation, just as they failed to advise him of his rights, told him not to have a lawyer present, and illegally withheld exculpatory evidence. Was he prosecuted? Oh yeah.

This was a political hit job. Flynn isn't an innocent flower - he lied to Pence and he didn't come forward about the fact that he was working on behalf of Turkey. That, however, doesn't make what the Justice Department under Obama did any less of an abuse of power.

Quote:
Quote:
It is against Executive Order for agencies of the United States government to engage in Assassination
I guess you better let Congress know, since I believe you know quite well what the criteria is for targeted killings.


A targeted killing of an enemy combatant is not an assassination. For example, having a sniper target a general officer (or another sniper) is not "assassination", any more than having a mortar round target a particular enemy formation is assassination any more than having a plane target a particular enemy commander is assassination.

Quote:
Quote:
After all, one of them was a member of a widely disliked incoming Republican Administration, and, according to officials at the FBI, the plan was to Stop Him.
LOL

The Clinton administration was widely disliked ... the Bush administration was widely disliked .... the Obama administration was widely disliked ... and you want to claim there is something different about the Trump administration??? Really?


As far as I am aware, not since Johnson has an Administration so weaponized the nation's national security apparatus against domestic political opponents as Obama did.

Quote:
If there was a "plan" to stop anyone from becoming president, what was that plan? The plan existed solely in Republicans fevered brains.


Perhaps you should tell that to the Senior FBI official Peter Strzok who was foolish enough to text his mistress bragging about how they had an "insurance" plan to stop the Trump administration.

The same Strzok who - we now know - was allowed to retroactively change findings in the Hillary investigation in order to protect her from being found to have broken the law, and who - we now know - was the reason that the Flynn investigation was driven on after the Agents involved concluded there was nothing there until they cost him $5 million in legal fees, forced him from his home, and were threatening his son, in order to get him to accept a plea bargain for not lying under oath.



Quote:
The FBI was torn between a fast thorough investigation before the election or a slow one. The thought was Mr trump would not be elected and therefore a slow approach would suffice.

Russians stumbling all over people associated with the Trump campaign and reports coming in of Russian interference and hacking emails .... and you think the FBI should not have investigated???? They would have been negligent if they hadn't.

Quote:
2. It is becoming increasingly clear, thanks to released documents, that no one in the Obama administration actually ever had evidence of a Russia Plot within the Trump campaign or administration.
No one had to have evidence. My God!!!!! That is precisely what an investigation does. Find out if the Trump campaign was criminally colluding with the Russians. How would you find out if they were if you didn't investigate???? Take the word of a potential Russian Manchurian candidate?????



Fair enough. I demand a full investigation into the Biden campaign for the possibility that Biden is a secret agent of Kim Jung Un and or the French. Put every single member of that campaign on oath about every event that has ever occurred in their lives, including Biden.

Oh, and if, of course, Biden forgets anything (and, we know he forgets things). That he has ever done. Ever. We should imprison him, and/or go after his family.

Now, you will say "there is no evidence to justify such an investigation and it's a ludicrous idea". I agree. It's at least as stupid as the idea that Putin looked at Trump and thought him a trustworthy actor who could keep a secret and would be His Man In Washington. But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?


Quote:
3. It has also been clear for some time that critical actors involved in the investigation were motivated by partisan concerns and goals - that is incredibly dangerous. Setting a precedent of using the awesome power of the U.S. Intelligence and Security institutions against domestic political opponents for political purposes is one of the quickest ways our form of government can self destruct.
Loooook ... just because the target of the investigation was a candidate does not mean the investigation was motivated by partisan concerns.[/quote]

The fact that those involved have demonstrated and said that their goals were partisan in nature pretty well establishes that. But, let me know when those prosecutions against Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, et. al., kick off.

Quote:
What you are saying is tantamount to never investigate anyone who runs for office, because it would be partisan to do so. Really????? How many times are you going to ignore the Russians or the reports about Russians or getting meetings with Russians or opening back channels with Russians.


This would be the Steele Dossier which - we now know - the administration knew at the time was B.S. and yet (lied, and) told the FISA court was the reason they had to spy on domestic political opponents?

Quote:
If you want an example of an investigation motivated by partisan concerns look no further than what the Trump administration has done. This is in your face and real abuse of office.


I completely believe that Trump would want such a thing - it is utterly within his nature to confuse "what is good for the country" with "what is good for me", and to see things like good governance, rule of law, and the long-term stability of the Republic as little things that ought not hinder him. However, I'm not aware of this kind of abuse occuring under him at current. If the aforementioned investigation into Joe Biden's North Korean Manchurian Candidate status for baseless reasons other than to try to score a political Hit occurs, let me know.


Quote:
Quote:
Hillary did far worse than joke about Russia hacking her opponents emails.
A joke ... really??? and you think that was all. No wonder you don't get it.

I am still waiting to hear what crime this was.


Violation of the Espionage Act regarding the protection of classified materials. Which - we now know - the FBI initially discovered she had violated, until Strzok was allowed to go back in and retroactively (and creatively) change the language smile.

Quote:
Quote:
we have since learned, Obama officials knew it at the time that they decided to go after the Trump campaign and incoming administration anyway.
They did not know which is precisely why they needed to investigate i.e. to make sure there was not a problem.


Sure. That's why we need to put everybody involved in the Biden campaign under oath. North Korea is a psychotic state - surely you don't want them controlling America!!!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? smile

Quote:
The Jan 5 meeting the Obama officials were scared shitless Gen Flynn was compromised with the Russians and did not know whether to trust him or anyone else in campaign/transition. So I have to ask again .... how do you go about making a determination something is not true?


I tend to assess the available evidence, including source critique.

Quote:
The investigation was predicated on real concerns the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians based on Russian interaction with campaign, reports regarding hacked emails, and a Russian campaign to help Mr Trump win election.


smile The FBI chose to break the law in order to go after someone they hated for political reasons while protecting someone they liked for political reasons. What the investigation was or was not predicated on does not excuse them of that.


Edited by CPWILL (05/13/20 06:49 PM)
_________________________
Winter Is Coming

Top
#325689 - 05/14/20 10:08 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: CPWILL]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7240
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
James Clapper lied under oath to Congress about collecting intelligence against American citizens.

So for an entire career you found the only instance of Clapper "lying". Here's the problem. He later realized he was talking about a different section of law and requested a closed hearing. I guess you could say since he served under presidents from both parties he only hated Republicans, so where are all the lies he told under oath under Republican presidents??? I don't know whether he intentionally misled Congress but I do know it is the only instance anyone has mentioned, and he has an explanation.

The Same could be said of McCabe and in fact he has filed suit against the FBI for wrongfully firing him which was based on his "lie". He has explained it somewhat and again it is the only instance anyone has presented. So why would someone who you alleged lied file suit to expose what you call a lie??? Makes me wonder about Mr Trump if that's the case.

Unlike you I can't say with certainty these guys lied. Their explanation could be valid. Since I have no partisan skin in this game, and since you can't produce other examples of their lying, I would have to conclude their explanation has enough credibility to say it is more likely they simply made an error in use of words, rather than trying to intentionally deceiving me. Obviously you believe they deceived you and you don't want to hear their explanation.







Quote:
Flynn, however, wasn't under oath, and the agents who interviewed him (we now know) didn't actually think he lied to them, though they did (we now know) lie to him about the nature of their investigation, just as they failed to advise him of his rights, told him not to have a lawyer present, and illegally withheld exculpatory evidence.

POint by point.
1. No he wasn't under oath but he was talking to FBI agents. As a former head of DNI he knew lying to FBI was a crime. Did they have to alert him? No. They were simply trying to find out what was going on.
2. The 302 had a comment they didn't think he lied. It was only later when investigating the context of his statements and the facts of the call and his conversations with VP Pence and other top officials, they realized he had lied about his calls with Amb. Kislyak. So you want to somehow conflate a 302 comment with events later?
3. They do not have to provide any information to an interviewee. What? you are surprised? That was a reality check for the naive. That the FBI does this is well known.
4. They were not charging with a crime when they interviewed him.
5. They did not tell him he could not have an attorney present. McCabe advised him some agents wanted to talk with him. He agreed and asked if he needed an attorney. McCabe told him unless he wanted DoJ involved, he wouldn't need one. Gen Flynn said ok send them.
6. The FBI is not required to provide any information.

I like your indignation. Based on your comments every criminal in America should be released because the FBI acted like the FBI. Nice.







Quote:
This was a political hit job.

Trying to find out what Gen Flynn was up to is a political hit job? Did Flynn have Russian contacts? Yep. Di Flynn do work for Russians? Yep. Did Flynn have 3 phone calls with the Russian Amb talking about sanctions imposed because of Russian interference in a US election? Yep.

Now you may not be interested in what was going on but I am. My interest is not political. It is about an existential threat to America which may have existed. I wouldn't know it didn't unless I found out. Asking Flynn to own up to the conversation is the way to do that. But he lied about it. He lied to VP Pence about his conversations. He lied to other top officials about it. (I wonder if he lied to Mr Trump???). He told the court he lied to the FBI and VP Pence. Not once but twice. Now he is saying they caused him to lie ... not that he didn't lie ... but they caught him in a perjury trap. Actually it couldn't be perjury since he wasn't under oath. Perjury may apply to what he said in court since he did take an oath in court to tell the truth. So how does the FBI get someone to lie??? I can't figure it out. You lie to deceive. So why would he try to deceive the FBI agents? Why deceive VP Pence? Could it be he told Mr Trump about the calls and didn't want the FBI to know he told Mr Trump? Because he thought he may have committed a crime???

Not a political hit job when national security was at stake.



Quote:
targeted killing
Drone strikes are targeted killings requiring a finding and a presidential sign off.

It was in fact a major portion of the so called email scandal. Found in Sec Clinton emails were 110 threads discussing CIA targeted assassination programs. People at State were concerned when news of this program had been outed and needed State's response. A long discussion ensued. These folks thought discussing a classified program was not the same as embedding classified reports in emails. Who knew. And even more surprisingly, Republicans pointed to this as the "smoking gun" Sec Clinton was intentionally embedding classified reports in her private email server ... wait for it .... after the program had been declassified by Pres Obama!!!!!





Quote:
an Administration so weaponized the nation's national security apparatus against domestic political opponents as Obama did

Here's the problem. You have confused politics and national security.

I can see how easy it is for Republicans and especially Trump supporters to believe paranoidly that the Democrats are out to get them. Conservatives think of themselves as victims. Victimized by Democrats, so anything a Democrat does is necessarily political to them.

So when say an investigation into some politician happens, it has to be political ... right? What about when it has to do with national security? Is it still political?

The Russians hacked the DNC email server. The Russians were asked by Mr Trump to hack Sec Clinton's email server. The IC had determined the Russians were meddling in an election and favored Mr trump over Sec Clinton. The Trump campaign took meetings with Russians looking for "dirt" and creating back channels. So when an American takes calls with the Amb of one of our primary enemies, the FBI stands up and takes note. And especially when they unmask that caller's name and found out it was Gen Flynn future Dir of NSC trying to undermine Congressional policy. Now if that does not register on your radar, then perhaps you should ask yourself which country you are in. Maybe you don't realize you are in America.

If you believe that is political ... well you use a dictionary only Trump supporters use. The one wherein if there is any criticism of Mr trump it is both political and personal and national security can be ignored.




Quote:
Peter Strzok who was foolish enough to text his mistress bragging about how they had an "insurance" plan
Yep they had one. They believed Sec Clinton would win. She was winning in the polls.

What? ... you thought 2 people in the FBI would lead a coup and overthrow a duly elected president? What kind of plan would that be? I think only a narcissist such as Mr Trump would be delusional enough to believe they could lead a coup ... but you may believe 2 FBI agents would be successful.





Quote:
Strzok ... was the reason that the Flynn investigation was driven on after the Agents involved concluded there was nothing there until ...
yes until Gen Flynn took 3 calls from Russian Amb Kislyak and discussed removing Congressional sanctions ... and then lied about discussing sanctions.

All Gen Flynn had to do was say, yep we discussed sanctions ... or to put it another way ... not lie.

Why would he lie??? He intentional deceived the FBI and VP Pence. Why? What was he hiding? You may not care but I have a sense (not worth anything in court) it had to do with Mr Trump. It may have been harmless or he may have thought he committed a crime, after all he hid his efforts with the Turkish government. I dunno. I would like to waterboard him to find the truth.




Quote:
I demand a full investigation into the Biden campaign for the possibility that Biden is a secret agent of Kim Jung Un and or the French. Put every single member of that campaign on oath about every event that has ever occurred in their lives, including Biden.
So you're claiming VP Biden hads DPRK agents stumbling all over each other? VP Biden is taking meetings with DPRK agents looking for "dirt" on Mr Trump? Has VP Biden had secret meetings with DPRK agents?

Basically what you want is a political witchhunt because there is no predication for an investigation .... unless you know VP Biden is colluding with Kim? You can't see the difference between what you prose and what happened during the Trump campaign???? Really????


Quote:
Now, you will say "there is no evidence to justify such an investigation and it's a ludicrous idea". I agree. It's at least as stupid as the idea that Putin looked at Trump and thought him a trustworthy actor who could keep a secret and would be His Man In Washington. But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
It would be except all the IC which made judgements came to the same conclusion ... the Russians meddled in the election and favored Mr Trump as their choice. I guess you can believe Putin when he strongly denied interfering and when Mr Trump said he believed Putin as he believed the Russians had no reason to meddle.



Quote:
The fact that those involved have demonstrated and said that their goals were partisan
I call BS

Please provide the evidence anyone involved both demonstrated and stated their goal was partisan.



Quote:
This would be the Steele Dossier which - we now know - the administration knew at the time was B.S. and yet (lied, and) told the FISA court was the reason they had to spy on domestic political opponents?
No ... you need to read the footnotes and additional FBI commentary explaining what they thought about the dossier ... and it is nothing like what you imagine. The dossier was RAW INTEL. It was a starting point for investigation. None of it was taken as fact and only some of it was ever verified. None has been refuted and some will never be verified. It was not the basis for the FISA warrants. It was an addendum to supply emphasis ... there was something happening and no one knew for sure what was happening .... had the Russians infiltrated a campaign???? You probably don't care but the FBI did.



Quote:
the FBI initially discovered she had violated, until Strzok was allowed to go back in and retroactively (and creatively) change the language
Strzok did not change by himself. His explanation was the legal team brought up the issue and suggested the change since there were legal implications in the language. He changed it and Dir Comey agreed to the change. BTW ... he didn't go back as you insinuate but simply changed the draft.




Quote:
However, I'm not aware of this kind of abuse occuring under him at current.
Really????

When asked of Sen Graham what would be a quid pro quo, he responded if Mr trump asked for a favor. Later the memo was released and ques what there it was the word Sen Graham said would mean quid pro quo, "favor".

When asked of Rep McCarthy when Mr Trump asked a favor though, Rep McCarthy said he didn't say "though" meaning that would constitute a quid pro quo, and when shown the memo, Rep McCarthy changed the subject.

Two instances of obvious in your face abuse of office for personal use in a campaign. These two folks knew it. I got it, because it is obvious, and yet you do not.






Quote:
I tend to assess the available evidence, including source critique.

LOL. there was no evidence i.e. the reason one has to investigate. All that was known was Russians everywhere ... reports of contacts with Russians ... a dossier alleging possible conspiracy ... Russian hacking .... Russian meddling. So your analysis is no problem ... so the Russians are coming ... big deal.

This is the reason the FBI needed to investigate ... they didn't have the answers.


Quote:
The FBI chose to break the law in order to go after someone they hated for political reasons
What law was broken? The FBI IG report stated there was no political bias found in pursuing the investigation.

Based on your beliefs, no person running for office should be investigated because it would be political and yet you want to investigate Sec Clinton as non political. Really???? You don't think retroactive classification of information which was public is not political? Really???

So when VP Biden carries on his campaign, he can surround himself with Russians, Iranians, North Koreans and you will not say a peep. Correct????
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#325701 - 05/15/20 03:01 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: NW Ponderer]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 15728
Loc: Whittier, California
New from the party that rants and raves about Big Brother and how they want Him off their backs:

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant ...which is funny because this is happening at the same time Trump is complaining about how the FBI spies on the lives of private citizens, like himself.

Warrantless browser history? So that Trump could vacuum up all the people who say nasty things about him, maybe?

What happened to all the conservatives who say that's a huge buzz kill?
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com

Top
#325707 - 05/15/20 06:29 PM Re: The Corruption of the Department of Justice is Nearly Complete [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7240
Loc: Highlands, Tx
You didn't read the fine print.

It excludes Mr Trump and associates at his discretion.

It's only political when it applies to Mr Trump ... otherwise lock her up.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3

Who's Online
0 registered (), 49 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2