Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this why Clinton didn’t get locked up? Or was she innocent or something?
Read Comey's public letter. He's twisting himself into knots as to why he recommends not prosecuting Clinton. Her server didn't even have Gmail level of security. I'd say her private server security was not much better than the security of posting top secret intel stuff via pm on this site. Still, Clinton got a sweetheart decision of barely a reprimand.
 
Sheesh. Of course Durham(he wasn't even investigating the entire agency) didn't find the entire agency was politically biased. No-one is seriously claiming every FBI agent and every FBI dept is biased. However, enough of the agents who were investigating Trump were either a) biased, or b) incompetent.

I don't think I've thrown the term conspiracy or theory around in this thread. I personally don't care if it's called CT, confirmation bias, incompetent or whatever. The fact is serious wrongdoings went on in the FBI concerning an investigation into Trump and his campaign. Some of these wrongdoings appear to have been committed hand in glove with the Dem campaign. For four years the Trump administration was hamstrung over an investigation that had no legal justification. Nothing to see here though folks, just a 'whoopsie' from the culpable parties and let's move on!

And those agents were given due punishment for being incompetent or biased. How was the Trump administration hamstrung? None of the wrongdoings "appear to have been committed hand in glove with the Dem campaign" (as you stated above), as the Durham report states (page 98) regarding the "Clinton Plan:" "it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia." Footnote 393 of the Durham report is also relevant, as it states that negative claims about a political opponent are routine and not illegal in and of themselves.

So I really don't find your claim to be consistent with the [Durham] report you brought when you claimed, "Nah, no way I'm believing the FBI were playing with a straight bat with regards to Trump. Call it a conspiracy, confirmation bias or whatever you wish. It's their thumb on the scales to undermine Trump, his campaign and his administration" on the previous page. Campaigns routinely try to smear each other, but I still don't see how this "hamstrung" Trump's administration once he was elected.
 
Read Comey's public letter. He's twisting himself into knots as to why he recommends not prosecuting Clinton. Her server didn't even have Gmail level of security. I’d say her private server security was not much better than the security of posting top secret intel stuff via pm on this site. Still, Clinton got a sweetheart decision of barely a reprimand.
Yes, but what would someone who actually knows say?
 
Read Comey's public letter. He's twisting himself into knots as to why he recommends not prosecuting Clinton. Her server didn't even have Gmail level of security. I'd say her private server security was not much better than the security of posting top secret intel stuff via pm on this site. Still, Clinton got a sweetheart decision of barely a reprimand.

Comey was referring to "common law" in that there wasn't a legal precedent to do so (i.e., "in looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here"). And to call this statement "twisting himself into knots" is a disservice to knots.

By the way, you were invoking common law here, in your attempts to say that Trump should not be indicted, when you called "common law" a "pretty big fckin deal in the US."
 
Read Comey's public letter. He's twisting himself into knots as to why he recommends not prosecuting Clinton. Her server didn't even have Gmail level of security. I'd say her private server security was not much better than the security of posting top secret intel stuff via pm on this site. Still, Clinton got a sweetheart decision of barely a reprimand.
Get over it
 
And those agents were given due punishment for being incompetent or biased. How was the Trump administration hamstrung? None of the wrongdoings "appear to have been committed hand in glove with the Dem campaign" (as you stated above), as the Durham report states (page 98) regarding the "Clinton Plan:" "it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia." Footnote 393 of the Durham report is also relevant, as it states that negative claims about a political opponent are routine and not illegal in and of themselves.

So I really don't find your claim to be consistent with the [Durham] report you brought when you claimed, "Nah, no way I'm believing the FBI were playing with a straight bat with regards to Trump. Call it a conspiracy, confirmation bias or whatever you wish. It's their thumb on the scales to undermine Trump, his campaign and his administration" on the previous page. Campaigns routinely try to smear each other, but I still don't see how this "hamstrung" Trump's administration once he was elected.
The FBI were using what the knew was Clinton campaign document, taking it as evidence to a FISA court, and not telling the judge it was opposition research. You don't think this little fact is relevant to a judge? The FBI were also using news reports they knew that came from the document and using this to once again bring to a FISA court.

Russiagate obviously hamstrung the Trump administration. There were Capitol Hill hearings on the matter, countless hours on prime time news, newspaper articles, FBI investigations, a Special Council appointed in Robert Mueller with all the legal might that brings. You don't think the Trump administration had to spend a massive amount of time & energy fighting back against all this? You don't think it took up much of Trump's focus? You don't think that many moderate Repubs and Dems on Capitol Hill kept their distance from the Trump administration? Compare it to Watergate; for the 18 months or so of Watergate the Nixon administration was similarly hamstrung. Unless that is your suggesting the Nixon administration floated through Watergate unaffected until the very day Nixon resigned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top