|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong?
Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture.
Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week).
|
On March 18 2018 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +He seems to quite like Green Horizons of late, what with GH criticising liberals constantly. Amazing how easily he ignored my critique of him in the same post when he was distracted by liberal blood in the water isn't it?
Pretty much yeah. I think XDaunt backed you up a couple of times too. But I guess when Dan isn't around you're here to fight the good fight.
On March 18 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong? Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture. Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week).
Oh I'm familiar with it, but I've never been able to see a clear, logical reason for why this whole thing matters. It all seems to come down to people on your side being upset that they have political opinions, without any evidence that said opinions have affected their work, which would be the issue.
I've read Fox News' own words breakdown of it - the guys who seem most invested in it - and it still sounds like a lot of nothing. Or a 'nothingburger' as your guys might say.
I don't see a single clear point saying that they did something wrong or illegal. It's just 'they said mean things about Trump in lots of private text messages'.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 18 2018 01:40 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote:On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong? Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture. Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week). Oh I'm familiar with it, but I've never been able to see a clear, logical reason for why this whole thing matters. It all seems to come down to people on your side being upset that they have political opinions, without any evidence that said opinions have affected their work, which would be the issue. I've read Fox News' own words breakdown of it - the guys who seem most invested in it - and it still sounds like a lot of nothing. Or a 'nothingburger' as your guys might say. I don't see a single clear point saying that they did something wrong or illegal. It's just 'they said mean things about Trump in lots of private text messages'.
If you consider yourself familiar with both sides and still can't find something wrong or illegal at the most base level, I'm content to let you continue in that belief. We dealt enough with that when it happened in the thread. I'm not getting paid here to prove false honesty and hypocrisy.
|
I also saw a thing about how McCabe may be able to qualify for his retirement if a senator or representative hires him for a few weeks lol
|
You saw your boss getting fired for refusing to pledge loyalty and ending the investigation into a friend of your boss.
Ofcourse you start keeping a record of anything and everything remotely relevant.
|
On March 18 2018 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 01:40 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote:On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong? Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture. Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week). Oh I'm familiar with it, but I've never been able to see a clear, logical reason for why this whole thing matters. It all seems to come down to people on your side being upset that they have political opinions, without any evidence that said opinions have affected their work, which would be the issue. I've read Fox News' own words breakdown of it - the guys who seem most invested in it - and it still sounds like a lot of nothing. Or a 'nothingburger' as your guys might say. I don't see a single clear point saying that they did something wrong or illegal. It's just 'they said mean things about Trump in lots of private text messages'. If you consider yourself familiar with both sides and still can't find something wrong or illegal at the most base level, I'm content to let you continue in that belief. We dealt enough with that when it happened in the thread. I'm not getting paid here to prove false honesty and hypocrisy.
Here’s what he’s referring to: Fox News reported on Wednesday that FBI lawyer Lisa Page told her lover Peter Strzok, an FBI agent, in a September 2016 text message that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing.” The two FBI officials are viewed by conservatives as the prime examples of alleged widespread anti-Trump bias among federal law enforcement, and have been targets of Republicans before.
Conservatives — including the president — quickly pounced on the texts. They said the texts were further evidence of the anti-Trump conspiracy during the Obama administration to minimize the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Asked on Fox & Friends to interpret the text, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that “it means the president [Obama] wants to know what they’re doing to stop Trump.” Some conservatives also believe the effort to depose Trump continues within special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which, among other things, looks into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
The problem: We already know none of that is true.
First, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that associates of Strzok and Page said the texts were actually about Obama wanting to learn more about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election — not about the Clinton investigation.
Second, CNN obtained emails in January that showed Strzok co-wrote the first draft of the letter that Comey sent to Congress in October 2016, announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails after finding new messages on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. That letter set off a political firestorm just 11 days before the presidential election and hurt Clinton at the polls — so much so that it may have swung the election in favor of Trump.
Finally, Fox News has the timeline all wrong. As Judd Legum at ThinkProgress noted on Wednesday, Comey closed the Clinton email investigation on July 5, 2016 — nearly two months before Page’s supposedly explosive text. On top of that, the newly revealed texts show that the FBI didn’t learn about the new Clinton emails later found on Anthony Weiner’s computer until September 28, 2016 — weeks after Page’s message to Strzok.
This means it’s actually unclear what Obama wanted to know, and not the nefarious move Fox News alleges. And it also continues the conservative campaign to discredit Mueller before his probe ends. source
|
|
|
Is neither of them being honorable still an option?
|
PS buy my book, America.
I mean it took a clown to expose all these childlike individuals, but damn. I mean sure, this individual lied about the CIA breaking into the Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers, and drone strikes not killing civilians in the Obama administration, but now it takes it one step further to lecture us afterwards.
Our intelligence bureaus are run by idiots and partisan idiots. You couldn't hope for better examples to show the American people that the man (or woman) up top may change, but the attitude and culture of the permanent bureaucracy will never yield to accountability. Trump's doing more good by accident than I ever predicted. We need this on full display. Bad apples like Comey & McCabe that come in conflict with the right people aren't dropped to protect the reputation and legitimacy of the larger movement, they're defended ad infinitum.
Seattle memes are becoming reality, Mohdoo.
|
On March 18 2018 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Is neither of them being honorable still an option?
What? You don’t actually believe that Comey is going to ride in on a white horse and save the country from Trump?!
|
On March 18 2018 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Is neither of them being honorable still an option?
Why would it? Comey hasn't done anything that makes him look "dishonourable".
|
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nader-child-porn-charges-prison-mueller-849498
The Lebanese-American businessman who features prominently in special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry was once sentenced to six months on child pornography charges in Virginia, Newsweek has learned.
George Nader, 58, has emerged as a key player in the investigation. An adviser to the Emirati crown prince, Nader is believed to have represented the kingdom’s interests in White House meetings, and frequently met with Jared Kushner during the early months of the Trump administration to discuss U.S. policies toward Persian Gulf states.
But before he reemerged as a Middle East power broker, the onetime publisher of a niche foreign policy magazine accrued a record of criminal charges. In 1985, federal authorities charged Nader for importing sexually explicit materials, including magazines and pictures that depicted “nude boys,” and other materials showing boys “engaged in a variety of sexual acts,” according to federal court records. The case was dropped shortly before trial. And in 2003 he was convicted on 10 counts of sexually abusing underage boys in the Czech Republic, the AP reported Thursday. Nader served one year in prison abroad for those charges.
|
On March 18 2018 03:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Is neither of them being honorable still an option? What? You don’t actually believe that Comey is going to ride in on a white horse and save the country from Trump?!
He means is it possible for both of them to be dishonourable, you've misread.
|
On March 18 2018 02:18 farvacola wrote:
I also saw a thing about how McCabe may be able to qualify for his retirement if a senator or representative hires him for a few weeks lol
Man I can imagine that coming up closer to november. Would be the best money the DNC ever spent.
If anything Its comey's honor that got him into the trouble that hes in. The whole issue boiled down to the idea of a slight against his honor and the honor of the FBI vs continuing on set policy.
|
On March 18 2018 03:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Is neither of them being honorable still an option? What? You don’t actually believe that Comey is going to ride in on a white horse and save the country from Trump?!
you seem to take delight in believing that no one can save the country from your orange godemperor. Do you want America to crash and burn that much?
|
On March 18 2018 02:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 02:18 Danglars wrote:On March 18 2018 01:40 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote:On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong? Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture. Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week). Oh I'm familiar with it, but I've never been able to see a clear, logical reason for why this whole thing matters. It all seems to come down to people on your side being upset that they have political opinions, without any evidence that said opinions have affected their work, which would be the issue. I've read Fox News' own words breakdown of it - the guys who seem most invested in it - and it still sounds like a lot of nothing. Or a 'nothingburger' as your guys might say. I don't see a single clear point saying that they did something wrong or illegal. It's just 'they said mean things about Trump in lots of private text messages'. If you consider yourself familiar with both sides and still can't find something wrong or illegal at the most base level, I'm content to let you continue in that belief. We dealt enough with that when it happened in the thread. I'm not getting paid here to prove false honesty and hypocrisy. Show nested quote +Here’s what he’s referring to: Fox News reported on Wednesday that FBI lawyer Lisa Page told her lover Peter Strzok, an FBI agent, in a September 2016 text message that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing.” The two FBI officials are viewed by conservatives as the prime examples of alleged widespread anti-Trump bias among federal law enforcement, and have been targets of Republicans before.
Conservatives — including the president — quickly pounced on the texts. They said the texts were further evidence of the anti-Trump conspiracy during the Obama administration to minimize the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Asked on Fox & Friends to interpret the text, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that “it means the president [Obama] wants to know what they’re doing to stop Trump.” Some conservatives also believe the effort to depose Trump continues within special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which, among other things, looks into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
The problem: We already know none of that is true.
First, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that associates of Strzok and Page said the texts were actually about Obama wanting to learn more about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election — not about the Clinton investigation.
Second, CNN obtained emails in January that showed Strzok co-wrote the first draft of the letter that Comey sent to Congress in October 2016, announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails after finding new messages on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. That letter set off a political firestorm just 11 days before the presidential election and hurt Clinton at the polls — so much so that it may have swung the election in favor of Trump.
Finally, Fox News has the timeline all wrong. As Judd Legum at ThinkProgress noted on Wednesday, Comey closed the Clinton email investigation on July 5, 2016 — nearly two months before Page’s supposedly explosive text. On top of that, the newly revealed texts show that the FBI didn’t learn about the new Clinton emails later found on Anthony Weiner’s computer until September 28, 2016 — weeks after Page’s message to Strzok.
This means it’s actually unclear what Obama wanted to know, and not the nefarious move Fox News alleges. And it also continues the conservative campaign to discredit Mueller before his probe ends. source
I do love that Fox has just given up the ghost handling real news and is now just straight up lying without putting in any effort.
|
On November 04 2016 14:21 Danglars wrote:Excerpts from the original story: Show nested quote +The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. “The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ” a person familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.
Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to “stand down,’’ a person familiar with the matter said. [...]
As a result of those complaints, these people said, a senior Justice Department official called the FBI deputy director, Mr. McCabe, on Aug. 12 to say the agents in New York seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions, these people said. The conversation was a tense one, they said, and at one point Mr. McCabe asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’’ The senior Justice Department official replied: ”Of course not.” WSJJust to recap, it's alleged the DOJ kept persisting in demands that the FBI give up the Clinton Foundation investigation. McCabe made a good move: ask them point-blank if they're forbidding the FBI to investigate this. If yes, the scheme is revealed. If they decline to go that far, he's fine going forward with what he thinks is proper.
This is Danglars quoting the article over which he now agrees McCabe should be fired, and praising McCabe for his actions. In the same post he referred to Comey as a "conflicted but stalwart" defender of the institution for his interactions with the media during the very strange and difficult 2016 election.
|
On March 18 2018 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 01:40 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote:On March 18 2018 01:08 iamthedave wrote:On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story. I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong? Google their job positions and their texts. It won't take you ten news articles to get an accurate picture. Really, I outline the reasons and leave the persuasion for people who show they have an understanding of the two sides and can at least recognize the issues at stake without dismissing them outright (angels/demons syndrome, or at least he/she didn't tweet out what Trump did last week). Oh I'm familiar with it, but I've never been able to see a clear, logical reason for why this whole thing matters. It all seems to come down to people on your side being upset that they have political opinions, without any evidence that said opinions have affected their work, which would be the issue. I've read Fox News' own words breakdown of it - the guys who seem most invested in it - and it still sounds like a lot of nothing. Or a 'nothingburger' as your guys might say. I don't see a single clear point saying that they did something wrong or illegal. It's just 'they said mean things about Trump in lots of private text messages'. If you consider yourself familiar with both sides and still can't find something wrong or illegal at the most base level, I'm content to let you continue in that belief. We dealt enough with that when it happened in the thread. I'm not getting paid here to prove false honesty and hypocrisy.
Yet you prove yourself a hypocrite for free so regularly!
On March 18 2018 02:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Here’s what he’s referring to: Fox News reported on Wednesday that FBI lawyer Lisa Page told her lover Peter Strzok, an FBI agent, in a September 2016 text message that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing.” The two FBI officials are viewed by conservatives as the prime examples of alleged widespread anti-Trump bias among federal law enforcement, and have been targets of Republicans before.
Conservatives — including the president — quickly pounced on the texts. They said the texts were further evidence of the anti-Trump conspiracy during the Obama administration to minimize the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Asked on Fox & Friends to interpret the text, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that “it means the president [Obama] wants to know what they’re doing to stop Trump.” Some conservatives also believe the effort to depose Trump continues within special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which, among other things, looks into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
The problem: We already know none of that is true.
First, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that associates of Strzok and Page said the texts were actually about Obama wanting to learn more about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election — not about the Clinton investigation.
Second, CNN obtained emails in January that showed Strzok co-wrote the first draft of the letter that Comey sent to Congress in October 2016, announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails after finding new messages on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. That letter set off a political firestorm just 11 days before the presidential election and hurt Clinton at the polls — so much so that it may have swung the election in favor of Trump.
Finally, Fox News has the timeline all wrong. As Judd Legum at ThinkProgress noted on Wednesday, Comey closed the Clinton email investigation on July 5, 2016 — nearly two months before Page’s supposedly explosive text. On top of that, the newly revealed texts show that the FBI didn’t learn about the new Clinton emails later found on Anthony Weiner’s computer until September 28, 2016 — weeks after Page’s message to Strzok.
This means it’s actually unclear what Obama wanted to know, and not the nefarious move Fox News alleges. And it also continues the conservative campaign to discredit Mueller before his probe ends. source[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought had happened. Not happened. Whatever.
Stupid 'controversy' for very stupid times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
