Oh yeah, it's just the Politifact-FBI conspiracy, working together to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn't get pinched.
The Rump Congress and the Christmas Coup
- Thread starter rexlunae
- Start date
Oh yeah, it's just the Politifact-FBI conspiracy, working together to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn't get pinched.
Maybe you should visit my thread, Why the Republicans will lose the Midterms
I don't know, how do I tell?
Oh I know how to tell, I'll just go check my bank records and see if I gave the Clinton Foundation 140 Million Dollars.
He's gonna drain the government of corrupt self dealing criminals with more loyalty to the deep state and replace them with the best and the brightest.
So again pretty much the opposite of what you said.
He hath slayed the demagogues. The Clinton's and Bush's lay at his feet. Trump has come to balance the force. The people didn't send him there for nuance. He was sent to smack people around.
Comey drafted Hillary's exoneration letter 2 months before the investigation concluded. Words were changed from gross negligence to extremely careless, witnesses were given immunity, Hillary's questioning was not recorded or documented, Bill met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in secret for a lengthy discussion, Hillary deleted and permanently erased 30,000 emails AFTER she was told to turn them over. Our "conspiracies" are much more substantial than your deluded imaginings.
I always thought it was funny how Trump fired him without remorse. He didn't even call Donald Trump bluff of jailing Hillary. Comey must have been an ignoramus.
Does he say russians didn't give the Clinton Foundation 140 Million dollars?
I think you should read your own cite.
So?
Yes. I can tell you why that is. "Grossly negligent" is a criminal charge that would require meeting a specific evidentiary burden that ultimately Comey felt was not met. Per Justice Department policy (for once), they don't level criminal accusations against people who they don't charge. If you stipulate his conclusion, for a moment, you can understand why the language would have to have been changed. Most likely, if they'd chosen to bring charges, the original language would have stayed. You can dispute that decision, but it's the decision that would have lead the change of language, not the other way around.
All that proves is that they were conducting an investigation. But we knew that without knowing that witnesses got immunity. I don't think the FBI was all that interested in charging the server admin guy, but he plead the Fifth, so they gave him immunity to force him to talk. The fact that they struck that deal suggests that they were taking the investigation seriously, and collecting as much evidence as they could.
That's a new one to me, but I guess I don't see what the problem with it is.
And I think everyone recognized that that was a mistake. Which is why Lynch did not make the decision about whether or not to bring charges.
I honestly can't tell you if there was a corrupt intent behind that meeting. I just don't know. But I do know that no evidence of such has come out. And innuendo isn't enough to bring charges. It is enough for Lynch to recuse herself.
I have to assume you haven't been keeping up.
| FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them." |
The server admin apparently had been asked previously to delete the emails, before the subpoena, and discovered later that he had not. There's no reason to believe that Clinton asked for him to do it after the subpoena was issued, beyond your own willingness to assume the worst of her. But that isn't evidence.
If there were such evidence, that would be a bombshell.
I give your opinions very little credence.
Right....they were intentionally deleted after the subpoena because they meant to intentionally delete them before the subpoena.
Comey is an idiot and deserved to get fired.
I doubt that. But I know you think highly of Trump's character, and I don't.
Comey takes his job seriously. He knows that you can't assume the motivation just based on coincidence. He needs actual evidence, which he didn't have.
Here's the thing with this, fool. Paul Combetta, the server admin, was given immunity so that he could testify. He couldn't be charged for what he told Comey, as long as it was the truth, so he had every reason in the world to tell Comey why he deleted the emails. And what he told Comey is that he realized after talking to Cheryl Mills (who also got immunity) of the Clinton campaign that he hadn't deleted them as he'd been asked. So, either he's telling the truth, and he acted of his own accord, or he's lying, which would jeopardize his immunity deal. And maybe he's just such a hard-core Clinton supporter that he would do that, but he wasn't a part of the campaign, he was just some guy at an IT company, so that seems like an extreme loyalty to show, and because it is exculpatory of Clinton, he would need some additional reason to impeach his own prize witness to get around it. And I would bet that Cheryl Mills' story corroborated his. So that is why Comey came to the conclusion he did.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...unity_is_trying_to_cover_up_the_cover_up.html
The details matter here. It's easy to cast it in a conspiratorial light, but that deliberately ignores important evidence.
He had plenty of evidence. He should have put in front of a grand jury.
That's what Trump should do.
I don't think many of his supporters think highly of his character. We didn't send him there for his character. We sent him there to flip over the tables.
Here’s a puzzle about the texts that got Peter Strzok in so much trouble: Why was the FBI’s top counterintelligence guy, an expert in secure communications, making radioactive comments via cellphone?
In any event, the FBI inspector general came across the texts and informed Strzok’s then-superior, Special Counsel Bob Mueller — who quite rightly kicked him off the “collusion” probe team.
[h=4]SEE ALSO[/h]
[h=3]FBI agent kicked off Mueller probe called Trump an 'idiot' and a 'douche'[/h]
The bureau stuck him in an HR job while the IG investigates, though now Congress is all over the matter, too.
And all for good reason: The texts show clear bias against now-President Trump, and for Hillary Clinton. At least one, mentioning an “insurance policy” if Trump won, casts doubt on the FBI work that wound up leading to Mueller’s probe.
That is, his foolishness (he even did it on his work phone) led to the exact opposite result of what any anti-Trumper would want.
Then, too, this married man was texting with his mistress, a top FBI lawyer. Was the affair another part of a life going off-track? (It even technically made him a security risk, since it left him vulnerable to blackmail.)
We have to trust the IG and Congress to get to the bottom of it all. But at a minimum it leaves a taint on every political case Strzok worked on, including the Hillary e-mail probe.
Ironically, it was the IG’s review of how the FBI handled that Clinton investigation that exposed the texts. That’s right: Strzok was on a case centered on careless communications security when he was himself so careless.
Whether there was any wrongdoing, we’ll soon find out. But either way, one thing is abundantly clear: Strzok was way, way off his intelligence game.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/the-other-great-mystery-of-strzoks-texts/
In any event, the FBI inspector general came across the texts and informed Strzok’s then-superior, Special Counsel Bob Mueller — who quite rightly kicked him off the “collusion” probe team.
[h=4]SEE ALSO[/h]
[h=3]FBI agent kicked off Mueller probe called Trump an 'idiot' and a 'douche'[/h]The bureau stuck him in an HR job while the IG investigates, though now Congress is all over the matter, too.
And all for good reason: The texts show clear bias against now-President Trump, and for Hillary Clinton. At least one, mentioning an “insurance policy” if Trump won, casts doubt on the FBI work that wound up leading to Mueller’s probe.
That is, his foolishness (he even did it on his work phone) led to the exact opposite result of what any anti-Trumper would want.
Then, too, this married man was texting with his mistress, a top FBI lawyer. Was the affair another part of a life going off-track? (It even technically made him a security risk, since it left him vulnerable to blackmail.)
We have to trust the IG and Congress to get to the bottom of it all. But at a minimum it leaves a taint on every political case Strzok worked on, including the Hillary e-mail probe.
Ironically, it was the IG’s review of how the FBI handled that Clinton investigation that exposed the texts. That’s right: Strzok was on a case centered on careless communications security when he was himself so careless.
Whether there was any wrongdoing, we’ll soon find out. But either way, one thing is abundantly clear: Strzok was way, way off his intelligence game.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/14/the-other-great-mystery-of-strzoks-texts/
[h=1]Republicans turn focus to FBI's McCabe over texts on 'insurance' against Trump[/h]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...be-over-texts-on-insurance-against-trump.html
Top Republicans are turning their focus to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as they scrutinize a host of anti-Trump texts exchanged between two bureau officials, raising questions about one in particular that seemed to reference an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
That text was revealed on Tuesday night when the Justice Department released hundreds of messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were romantically involved and at one point worked on Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Some lawmakers surmise "Andy" is a reference to Andrew McCabe, and now want to know about his communications with Page and Strzok.
“This [text] is the one that concerns me the most,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said on “Fox & Friends” Thursday, one day after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Mueller probe in testimony before Goodlatte's committee.
“Andy is presumably Andrew McCabe ... and this text is very troubling because it suggests that they’re doing something, they have a plan to take action to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected president of the United States at the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...be-over-texts-on-insurance-against-trump.html
Top Republicans are turning their focus to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as they scrutinize a host of anti-Trump texts exchanged between two bureau officials, raising questions about one in particular that seemed to reference an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
That text was revealed on Tuesday night when the Justice Department released hundreds of messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were romantically involved and at one point worked on Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Some lawmakers surmise "Andy" is a reference to Andrew McCabe, and now want to know about his communications with Page and Strzok.
“This [text] is the one that concerns me the most,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said on “Fox & Friends” Thursday, one day after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Mueller probe in testimony before Goodlatte's committee.
“Andy is presumably Andrew McCabe ... and this text is very troubling because it suggests that they’re doing something, they have a plan to take action to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected president of the United States at the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
He had evidence that was exculpatory. That's the problem. Putting it in front of a grand jury would have been malpractice.
Put it front of a grand jury, the emails never should have been slated for demo from the get go. There were work related emails in there. So she broke the law when she didn't turn them over the first time.
He should have put it in front of a grand jury and let them decide if it was Extreme Carelessness or Gross Negligence.