dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 21, 2018 15:21:05 GMT -5
Maybe that's why he called them up and treated them poorly? I'm familiar with Occam's razor. could just as easily be that they are pissed because we spied on THEM, right? i mean, that is #realnews. Merkel was furious about it. or am i misremembering? that is the funny thing about talking to you and others on this board. i start to doubt my own sense of things. don't laugh. it's not funny. PS- thanks for the dialog and discussion. i appreciate your thoughts. While Harry Truman had the sign on his desk "The Buck Stops Here"...meaning he, the POTUS, was responsible for all decisions...While technically correct..I don't believe that is absolutely true. The spying on a friendly country's leader was in affect I believe from one of our seventeen [do we have more] intelligence agencies...do not believe it was being done as ordered by the POTUS in office, Obama, orders...not sure when this went into effect, what President was in office when this was initiated... I believe when it came to Obamas attention, believe he apologized to Merkel and ordered that surveillance ended...believe to all friendly governments...though not uncommon to spy on friends...all sides do it and to me, makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 21, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 17:53:49 GMT -5
msm still so quiet. Big mistake- for them . The text exchanges also indicate the FBI substituted, and then omitted, damaging language in FBI Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement that recommended Clinton not be charged. The original draft noted that Clinton had improperly used personal email to contact President Obama while abroad in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. According to the text exchange, an FBI official then removed President Obama’s name and stated that Clinton had simply emailed “another senior government official.” In the final statement as delivered by Comey on July 5, both references were omitted entirely. In previous text messages produced to the House of Representatives, Strzok and Page discussed needing an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to become president. The newest batch of text messages turned over on Friday show that in February of 2016, Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be president thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 21, 2018 20:46:00 GMT -5
...Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be president"... The Hill's use of [sic] here is curious. As I see it, not only is "simply can not be president" proper English, it has a different meaning from "simply cannot be president". The latter implies he lacks the capacity to serve as president while the former implies he mustn't be permitted to assume office. Anyone else get the same read on it?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 21, 2018 21:23:15 GMT -5
In a sense. I would agree that the usage is odd and that the two terms can have dissimilar meanings. I would characterize it though that "cannot" implies an impossibility, such as not meeting age or citizenship requirements, or a strong negative wish such as "We cannot allow this!" The term "can not" would imply either a theoretical or a choice, such as "can or can not." That interpretation suggests that the text was improperly spelled but in no way would I consider it deserving of [sic] in an article. On further reflection, the strong negative wish would also be served with "can NOT" with the not capitalized for emphasis. (I could cite some examples, but I might feel compelled to draw them from the bakery threads. You up for that?)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 21, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 22:16:07 GMT -5
...Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be president"... The Hill's use of [sic] here is curious. As I see it, not only is "simply can not be president" proper English, it has a different meaning from "simply cannot be president". The latter implies he lacks the capacity to serve as president while the former implies he mustn't be permitted to assume office. Anyone else get the same read on it? Not sure. Would be nice to have the other 5 months worth of missing texts to make a better judgement but our gov agencies seem to have trouble holding on to things like that. They go missing, get smashed with hammers , etc.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 21, 2018 23:38:16 GMT -5
msm still so quiet. Big mistake- for them . The text exchanges also indicate the FBI substituted, and then omitted, damaging language in FBI Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement that recommended Clinton not be charged. The original draft noted that Clinton had improperly used personal email to contact President Obama while abroad in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. According to the text exchange, an FBI official then removed President Obama’s name and stated that Clinton had simply emailed “another senior government official.” In the final statement as delivered by Comey on July 5, both references were omitted entirely. In previous text messages produced to the House of Representatives, Strzok and Page discussed needing an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to become president. The newest batch of text messages turned over on Friday show that in February of 2016, Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be presidentthehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigationWhile I understand why some of you want this investigated, this also sounds to me like general disgruntled co-workers discussing a potential head cheese they really don't want to work for. Frankly this sounds like lots of posts on P&M prior to the election.
And if you were willing to grab all US govt employee texts from before Obama's first election, I bet you'd find something similar in multiple instances.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 0:03:11 GMT -5
I think the text investigations are just drama and diversion for those who love conspiracy theories. I like this article although I don't feel like reading many more in the future. Looking for drama in a message haystack is not my idea of a good time. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-text-message-leaks-trump-clinton_us_5a58d593e4b0720dc4c69677 The theory Trump and others have been pushing insinuates that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two current FBI employees who were having an affair, were at the heart of an FBI conspiracy against Trump during the 2016 election campaign. Adherents of this theory believe that the couple’s 2016 texts criticizing Trump ― which were recovered from their government cellphones, provided to Congress and shared with some reporters ― prove they were out to get the then-candidate.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense on its face. Most of the information that came out of the bureau during the election was damaging to Hillary Clinton, not Trump. And Page, an FBI lawyer, and Strzok, a top counterintelligence agent who was removed from Mueller’s probe in July, exchanged texts slamming politicians and officials of all ideological stripes, not just Trump.
But the idea that Strzok and Page were secretly working against Trump during the 2016 campaign has spread like a rumor in a middle school anyway.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 22, 2018 8:18:43 GMT -5
I think the text investigations are just drama and diversion for those who love conspiracy theories. I like this article although I don't feel like reading many more in the future. Looking for drama in a message haystack is not my idea of a good time. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-text-message-leaks-trump-clinton_us_5a58d593e4b0720dc4c69677 The theory Trump and others have been pushing insinuates that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two current FBI employees who were having an affair, were at the heart of an FBI conspiracy against Trump during the 2016 election campaign. Adherents of this theory believe that the couple’s 2016 texts criticizing Trump ― which were recovered from their government cellphones, provided to Congress and shared with some reporters ― prove they were out to get the then-candidate.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense on its face. Most of the information that came out of the bureau during the election was damaging to Hillary Clinton, not Trump. And Page, an FBI lawyer, and Strzok, a top counterintelligence agent who was removed from Mueller’s probe in July, exchanged texts slamming politicians and officials of all ideological stripes, not just Trump.
But the idea that Strzok and Page were secretly working against Trump during the 2016 campaign has spread like a rumor in a middle school anyway.
Yeah the conspiracy puts a lot of emphasis on these two FBI agents 'colluding' through their texts.
I try not to be unprofessional on my company phone but I really hope no one ever prints out a list of the texts I've exchanged with my DH over the years.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 9:40:42 GMT -5
These were not regular FBI folks. They were in the very top ranks. Strzok was the deputy chief of counter intelligence. Lisa Page was a lawyer and McCabe's assistant. It's believed she was one of the people who presented the case for a warrant to the FISA court. So they were in the top ranks. That does not prove they did anything nefarious to prevent Trump from being elected. They whined and complained about multiple political figures including Hillary. In the example above, there's no proof they were associated with the leak and more support to the fact that they were not. And it wasn't even anti-Trump.
People can talk about things in grandiose terms when in private. An insurance policy might be a way to survive getting the head cheese you don't want. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist its weird to me to assume its some political equivalent of mob talk.
The released texts don't have any bombshells IMO unless of course you are conspiracy minded and take every word you can turn into a story into a fullblown storyline just reading it. Then you apparently are on the edge of your seat because you are anticipating finding evidence the storyline you created is true. If you are that type of person, you really should stay away from any kind of investigation because you get too attached to what you find and are unable to process what you see logically and let that determine if there is anything to find. For example, that text about Hillary knowing she wouldn't be charged. Its likely just a more educated opinion, but I'm sure some of you are reading anything you can find on this, just in the hope there will exist some evidence someone at the FBI told Hillary she wouldn't be charged before the investigation concluded.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 9:50:28 GMT -5
I also like this article. I'm glad major outlets are covering this sparingly. We do not need the middle or the left to start coddling and supporting conspiracy theorists like the right has been doing. If I cared, this would be a great time to judge various conservative media outlets by simply how fevered or not they are over these private texts.
www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policy But the president’s defenders are off base when they try read conspiracy into Peter Strzok’s “insurance policy” message. Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote.
Could he have written it more gracefully to avoid ambiguity? Sure. But if that is what you want to argue, I hope you’ll publish all the 2 a.m. texts you’ve sent to your lovers so we have a model of the clarity that’s possible.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 22, 2018 9:51:50 GMT -5
Tell me If they person they were referring was Hillary instead of Trump, Would you be defending or trying to deflect what they meant in those emails?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 22, 2018 9:57:35 GMT -5
So if principle investigators are show biased in there personal email, It means nothing?? There is a real problem with ethics and honesty within the FBI. All I have to do is say Bundy Trial,, Maybe you can explain that one away also!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 10:22:49 GMT -5
Tell me If they person they were referring was Hillary instead of Trump, Would you be defending or trying to deflect what they meant in those emails? I'm not deflecting. I don't see a conspiracy. I see idiots who were using devices they shouldn't have been to discuss political figures. People expressing opinions that others like to take a different way.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 10:42:42 GMT -5
So if principle investigators are show biased in there personal email, It means nothing?? There is a real problem with ethics and honesty within the FBI. All I have to do is say Bundy Trial,, Maybe you can explain that one away also! Sure the bias is important, but let's face it, that's not what the conservative media is talking about. Its Oh My! he said "insurance policy", she said "she knew she wouldn't be charged". I can almost see the smelling salts or Kleenex box and lotion.
A good portion of the conservative media has packaged this up as catnip to the conspiracy minded. Yes there are things that should not be discussed outside of work on personal devices. And I like many non conservatives think they deserve reprimanding, removal from cases, etc.
There is a problem with ethics with these two and likely more in the FBI. And it might be a culture problem. But heck look at the WH. The head occupant daily screws up ethics and honesty. Its hard for me to get riled up about two people stupidly doing the equivalent of office gossip on their private devices when Trump tweets out things that are unethical and dishonest on a daily basis. Why can't conservatives get riled up about a man who threatens media with illegal actions? Is it really because you aren't worried he's going to come after FOX and Breitbart? Because you are OK with bad behavior as long as its aimed at CNN? His crap isn't theory. Its out there where anyone can read it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 22, 2018 10:47:40 GMT -5
Tell me If they person they were referring was Hillary instead of Trump, Would you be defending or trying to deflect what they meant in those emails? I'd be willing to bet for every two FBI agents who are dating and exchanging text messages about how they hate Trump you would find at least two FBI agents who are exchanging text messages about how much they hate Hillary and the Dems. Their names haven't been published and their text messages made public because the GOP is on a witch hunt for pro-Hillary FBI agents right now. If the dems were on the hunt for Anti-Hillary texts, they would find them.
FBI has a large number of ex-military types who tend to be pro-GOP. If you investigated the voting record for every agent, I'm betting the averages would lean to the right. Which is fine, as long as the agents behave in a non-partisan manner in their investigations. If these two agents, or any other FBI agents, acted in a partisan way, they should be held accountable and face re-assignment or termination.
Other than these texts, which were private, between two adults in a relationship, I haven't seen concrete evidence that either one of them actually DID anything partisan in their jobs - just the convoluted links of conspiracy theorists. And one of them did get reassigned by Mueller, as soon as he found out about the texts, just because it gave the appearance of being partisan.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 22, 2018 10:51:03 GMT -5
So if principle investigators are show biased in there personal email, It means nothing?? There is a real problem with ethics and honesty within the FBI. All I have to do is say Bundy Trial,, Maybe you can explain that one away also! Believe it or not, people can have personal opinions and still perform their job in a non-partisan way. FBI agents are required to do that. If there is actual evidence that they did not, they should face repercussions.
Think about what the government would look like if you required every federal employee to swear allegiance to the president. Every time you got a new president, you would have to clear out all the old federal employees and replace them with new ones willing to swear a loyalty oath to the new party in charge. It would be chaos.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 10:59:52 GMT -5
Their own texts show they broke the law by using private devices to communicate about cases. They also show they were trying to evade the FBI's record keeping, which is also required by law. Most likely these two feature in the FISA memo that will be declassified soon. It's funny how something like 160 House members have read it and only one or two of this are Democrats. Actually I don't find it funny or surprising at all. Because really how many examples do you really need to prove the law is broken if a case is discussed? Unless you are prosecuting it and need to know all of it, its just slogging through a bunch of texts for little benefit.
So more than half of the House members have not read it. I wouldn't either unless I had to for some committee. I'd be unlikely to read more than a couple of Trump's emails for example, if they were released. I do not get the excitement and anticipation some of you have on this and other things like it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 22, 2018 12:17:59 GMT -5
It's curious that Mr. Strzok almost becomes the anti-Wikileaks (exposing Pres. Trump's sins to the light of day) if we consider the dossier and Russiagate to be legitimate rather than fabricated. One could believe him or disbelieve him, love him or hate him, with the opposite parity of loving/hating Wikileaks.
What a world we live in.
I wonder: If conclusive evidence turned up tomorrow proving that both i) the Trump campaign, with full knowledge of Pres. Trump, eagerly colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers and all the data onto the Internet, and ii) the Clinton campaign, with full knowledge of Ms. Clinton, exploited contacts in the White House, FBI, and DoJ to obtain FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign under false pretenses, which of the two would acts would be the least forgivable? If we could undo one of the two acts, which one would it be?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 22, 2018 12:20:10 GMT -5
Equal.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 22, 2018 12:20:20 GMT -5
I also like this article. I'm glad major outlets are covering this sparingly. We do not need the middle or the left to start coddling and supporting conspiracy theorists like the right has been doing. If I cared, this would be a great time to judge various conservative media outlets by simply how fevered or not they are over these private texts.
www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policy But the president’s defenders are off base when they try read conspiracy into Peter Strzok’s “insurance policy” message. Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote.
Could he have written it more gracefully to avoid ambiguity? Sure. But if that is what you want to argue, I hope you’ll publish all the 2 a.m. texts you’ve sent to your lovers so we have a model of the clarity that’s possible.
This is pretty bad, Optimist. Pretty bad.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 12:47:34 GMT -5
I'm not explaining myself well. I apologize. The thought is not that they loved Clinton but that FBI/DOJ malfeasance in the email investigation and using NSA data led them to support her over Trump. They expected she would win but did not like her. The other thought is that Trump was not the only candidate who was spied on using NSA data. The number/timing of unmasking requests suggests the Trump campaign was the primary target but not the only one. It's in the record that the FBI/DOJ allowed contractors to search raw FISA data. The belief is that one of those contractors was Fusion GPS. If that's true then high ranking members of the FBI/DOJ allowed raw intel on US citizens and government officials to be mined for sale to private groups (corporations, media companies, wealthy individuals). And I think I really don't understand what you are saying or believe differently enough than you I don't know if I should care why any federal employee comes to pick candidate A over B as long as they do their job no matter which one wins.
What I don't get is these requests related to Russian interference are going to go against people suspected of that. People like Manafort got chosen because they have a history that predates Trumps campaign. If enough people like that end up in any campaign I would hope they would be investigated. And then logically one should wonder if the campaign mgmt. is involved as well if they didn't have prior history just because of sheer numbers. Some article showed how things were getting to critical mass with Russian influencers in Trump's campaign. I don't think that ever happened before. That should be worrisome. Even more so than Wasserman acting like an ass because at least to my knowledge she is still not working on the behalf of a foreign government.
I still believe the primary target was Russian interference. I will change my mind if you can prove that they went after people in Trump's campaign closest to him first with no known Russian ties. Why don't I have Ivanka and Jared texts and emails to read through instead of some FBI folks having affairs? If you are going after the Trump campaign and not a foreign govt, shouldn't you be starting with them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 21, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 13:11:41 GMT -5
msm still so quiet. Big mistake- for them . The text exchanges also indicate the FBI substituted, and then omitted, damaging language in FBI Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement that recommended Clinton not be charged. The original draft noted that Clinton had improperly used personal email to contact President Obama while abroad in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. According to the text exchange, an FBI official then removed President Obama’s name and stated that Clinton had simply emailed “another senior government official.” In the final statement as delivered by Comey on July 5, both references were omitted entirely. In previous text messages produced to the House of Representatives, Strzok and Page discussed needing an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to become president. The newest batch of text messages turned over on Friday show that in February of 2016, Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be presidentthehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigationWhile I understand why some of you want this investigated, this also sounds to me like general disgruntled co-workers discussing a potential head cheese they really don't want to work for. Frankly this sounds like lots of posts on P&M prior to the election.
And if you were willing to grab all US govt employee texts from before Obama's first election, I bet you'd find something similar in multiple instances.
To me it sounds like the fix was in for Hillary and everyone knew well ahead of the end of the investigation that she would be charged with nothing. When she lost they had to bury the bodies and the Trump collusion narrative was formed.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 13:18:30 GMT -5
Because these emails are from the IG, Senate and House investigations into the Clinton email case and Fusion GPS, not the Mueller investigation. I think I'm lost. Too many rabbit holes for my taste. Since apparently the GOP or the right will never ever let the Clinton email case die, let's discuss how really weird it is to retroactively classify a Clinton email discussing a newspaper article about drones.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 22, 2018 13:18:35 GMT -5
Nobody needed to fix anything for Clinton. She was never going to be charged because there was nothing for her to be legitimately charged with. To believe otherwise was desperation, not evidence.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 22, 2018 13:25:36 GMT -5
It's curious that Mr. Strzok almost becomes the anti-Wikileaks (exposing Pres. Trump's sins to the light of day) if we consider the dossier and Russiagate to be legitimate rather than fabricated. One could believe him or disbelieve him, love him or hate him, with the opposite parity of loving/hating Wikileaks. What a world we live in. I wonder: If conclusive evidence turned up tomorrow proving that both i) the Trump campaign, with full knowledge of Pres. Trump, eagerly colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers and all the data onto the Internet, and ii) the Clinton campaign, with full knowledge of Ms. Clinton, exploited contacts in the White House, FBI, and DoJ to obtain FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign under false pretenses, which of the two would acts would be the least forgivable? If we could undo one of the two acts, which one would it be? Well, the main thing I'm worried about with Trump is that his business deals with Russia (possible money laundering) makes him a blackmail target. If that proves not to be true, my second concern is that Manafort was colluding with the Russians to try to steer Trump into a pro-Russian stance, to lift sanctions and look the other way on the Ukraine and other Russian attempts to strong arm other governments (including their meddling in a lot of western elections, not just ours). Probably the third worst thing I'm worried about is that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to hack the DNC servers. Regardless, if the Clinton camp illegally got FISA warrants, and there are DOJ/FBI people who participated in the scheme, that should also be prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law.
Illegal is illegal. I hope there are no phony presidential pardons, either.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,188
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 22, 2018 13:26:59 GMT -5
While I understand why some of you want this investigated, this also sounds to me like general disgruntled co-workers discussing a potential head cheese they really don't want to work for. Frankly this sounds like lots of posts on P&M prior to the election.
And if you were willing to grab all US govt employee texts from before Obama's first election, I bet you'd find something similar in multiple instances.
To me it sounds like the fix was in for Hillary and everyone knew well ahead of the end of the investigation that she would be charged with nothing. When she lost they had to bury the bodies and the Trump collusion narrative was formed. OK, sounds like a usual RW theory. Here's mine. Everyone knew they were unable to prove intent, therefore they knew at most a slap on the wrist was coming. Trump is an ass and does horrible things everyday so he constantly needs new theories to make some of the voters happy. Calling the Russian investigation a Trump collusion narrative is just the kind of spin that keeps coming from the RW and Trump spin machines.
I used to think Trump wasn't involved, but after months and months of his whining and bluster I ask myself why does he keep focusing on that? And I guess part of the answer is some people buy it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,513
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 22, 2018 13:31:28 GMT -5
To me it sounds like the fix was in for Hillary and everyone knew well ahead of the end of the investigation that she would be charged with nothing. When she lost they had to bury the bodies and the Trump collusion narrative was formed. OK, sounds like a usual RW theory. Here's mine. Everyone knew they were unable to prove intent, therefore they knew at most a slap on the wrist was coming. Trump is an ass and does horrible things everyday so he constantly needs new theories to make some of the voters happy. Calling the Russian investigation a Trump collusion narrative is just the kind of spin that keeps coming from the RW and Trump spin machines.
I used to think Trump wasn't involved, but after months and months of his whining and bluster I ask myself why does he keep focusing on that? And I guess part of the answer is some people buy it.
Unfortunately in this country, we still allow stupid people to vote.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 22, 2018 13:49:07 GMT -5
Are you suggesting limiting voting rights based on what you consider to be "stupid"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 21, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 13:55:17 GMT -5
Just a question.
Does anyone here believe that the meeting on a tarmac in Phoenix between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton was just a coincidence ?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 22, 2018 14:02:19 GMT -5
Why not? Bill could have just called her on the phone for any nefarious purposes he might have had in mind.
|
|