|
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 November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant.
No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no.
|
On November 04 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:29 TheYango wrote:On November 04 2016 04:27 Plansix wrote:
Then they can continue their investigation, find the illegal activity and present it to the Republican congress to impeach Clinton after the election. Or charge her if she loses.
The implication, I assume, is that they can't "continue their investigation" due to higher-ups stonewalling the process. Thus the goal of this leak is to put political pressure via the media to allow them to continue said investigation. I understand the goal of their approach, but I think it's a shitty way to do it, and doesn't reflect well on the FBI as a whole. Yes, basically this. What the FBI agents are doing clearly is not above-board, but I'm not sure that they really have a choice. If they want to pressure via the media then don't fucking do it a week before the election. This isn't pressuring superiors. This is direct interference with the Democratic process. And you don't think that covering up for potential crimes is interference in the democratic process? How about Obama's lies about being unaware of Hillary's server? Where exactly do you want to draw the line? Here's the important question that we have to ask ourselves: regardless of the pure and strict legality of whatever the Clintons have done with their foundation, they very clearly have created a new business model that lets them sell their influence in exchange for their own personal aggrandizement. Again, and regardless of its legality, do really want to tolerate this kind of apparent impropriety from our politicians? As I said a dozen times now, if they have evidence then show it. Including now a week before the election. But if you have no evidence then you keep your mouth shut and you don't interfere based on gut feelings. And no I dont believe they are selling influence unless I see evidence. And no I dont have a problem with the legal Clinton Foundation. The Clintons had no money when they left the White House. Now they have in excess of $300 million. Where do you think that came from?
Well, gee, it's a good thing the Clintons have released their tax returns for the past 20 years.
"Where did it come from?"
I've always laughed at people who think you're the "sensible" Republican of this place. Says a lot about Republicans.
|
On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons.
If they are convinced and willing to leak over it they should have evidence.
And again I repeat myself. Let them show the evidence they have sofar.
If they have no evidence of corruption then they are leaking on their gut feeling and influencing an election based on no evidence.
Which is terrible.
|
On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no.
That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007 and are not a comprehensive list of engagements.
So.... how is the 30 million (minimum) he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done?
So I guess I'm glad you agree that you don't want Trump as president since, "I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no."
|
On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no.
Obama's VC firm is going to blow the Clintons' speeches away.
|
On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no.
As opposed to own a private company that they refuse to put in a blind trust and that has investors from god knows where? Your theory might apply if anyone but Trump was running. But sadly, he is your guy and he will be running his business through his children while in office.
|
On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done?
Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum.
|
On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons.
What you are describing is essentially a situation where rank and command structure is irrelevant. If an agent disagrees strongly enough, they can just do whatever the fuck they want, because they are well intended. Intentions are not always good enough. That's why command structures exist. Your argument is essentially disregarding the entire purpose of a command structure.
|
On November 04 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done? Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum.
"Because I said so" is not a compelling argument.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons.
1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case
2. it is still going rogue
3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue
|
On November 04 2016 05:22 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done? Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum. "Because I said so" is not a compelling argument.
You're not interested in listening anyway, so I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling it out in detail. What I'm talking about is clear enough above.
|
On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue
1) Correct.
2) Correct.
3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment.
|
No evidence just innuendo, accusations and suspicion. This is why people bring up McCarthyism.
Bonus: Trump supporters begrudging someone for becoming wealthy.
|
On November 04 2016 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:22 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done? Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum. "Because I said so" is not a compelling argument. You're not interested in listening anyway, so I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling it out in detail. What I'm talking about is clear enough above.
It's not at all clear. I am listening and I haven't heard anything. You just put forth some notion that the Clintons are frauds for their speeches, used the money they made as evidence, then claimed that others making money on the same business model are not part of the same fraudulent activity.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done? Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum. why do plutocrats donate to universities? it is called goodwill, publicity
|
On November 04 2016 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:22 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:20 Logo wrote:On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. That article I linked mentioned that Trump made 1.5mil each time on 17 speech engagements and 1 million for 5 more engagements. The dates were 2005-2007. So.... how is the 30 million he made in 3 years not on the same scale as what the Clintons have done? Because Trump isn't selling what the Clintons sell. It's not about the speeches. And you can't look at the Clintons' speeches in a vacuum. "Because I said so" is not a compelling argument. You're not interested in listening anyway, so I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling it out in detail. What I'm talking about is clear enough above.
As with most your claims with the Clintons, you have no evidence. Just a core belief that they must be crooked because the Republicans have spent decades trying to prove it. And once people back you into a corner, you start calling them stupid and that only you have the clarity to see without bias.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment.
wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself
|
On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment.
In other words, the end justifies the means.
And when it comes to government organizations privy to information on citizens of the nation, it's okay for them to abuse their power and privilege however they choose as long as the bad people are dealt with.
Remember, the government is corrupt, the people are losing their rights, and the status quo has to change. Except when I agree with everything that's happening, then the government should be as corrupt as possible and rights mean nothing.
|
On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no.
if we could get another few massive charities like the clinton foundation, yeah, i think that'd be a good thing generally speaking.
On November 04 2016 05:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches. And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time. They charge the same speaking fees that all former presidents charge. Some of them have charged more. Once again, show us the evidence, rather than creating tortured theory of peddling influence by doing the exact same thing all other politicians do. It only shows your complete lack of understanding of the subject or a desire to be willingly ignorant. No one has done what the Clintons have done -- and specifically on the scale that the Clintons have done it. That's my point. I'm not making a judgment as to whether its legal or illegal. I'm just asking the question if their business model is something that we want all politicians to emulate. I think the answer is clearly no. Obama's VC firm is going to blow the Clintons' speeches away.
he'll probably end up at KPCB, Andreesen or some other as an advisor or something initially. those firms are already connected out the wazzoo.
|
On November 04 2016 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:29 TheYango wrote:On November 04 2016 04:27 Plansix wrote:
Then they can continue their investigation, find the illegal activity and present it to the Republican congress to impeach Clinton after the election. Or charge her if she loses.
The implication, I assume, is that they can't "continue their investigation" due to higher-ups stonewalling the process. Thus the goal of this leak is to put political pressure via the media to allow them to continue said investigation. I understand the goal of their approach, but I think it's a shitty way to do it, and doesn't reflect well on the FBI as a whole. Yes, basically this. What the FBI agents are doing clearly is not above-board, but I'm not sure that they really have a choice. If they want to pressure via the media then don't fucking do it a week before the election. This isn't pressuring superiors. This is direct interference with the Democratic process. And you don't think that covering up for potential crimes is interference in the democratic process? How about Obama's lies about being unaware of Hillary's server? Where exactly do you want to draw the line? Here's the important question that we have to ask ourselves: regardless of the pure and strict legality of whatever the Clintons have done with their foundation, they very clearly have created a new business model that lets them sell their influence in exchange for their own personal aggrandizement. Again, and regardless of its legality, do really want to tolerate this kind of apparent impropriety from our politicians? As I said a dozen times now, if they have evidence then show it. Including now a week before the election. But if you have no evidence then you keep your mouth shut and you don't interfere based on gut feelings. And no I dont believe they are selling influence unless I see evidence. And no I dont have a problem with the legal Clinton Foundation. The Clintons had no money when they left the White House. Now they have in excess of $300 million. Where do you think that came from? People make money, Famous people make more money More news at 11 Show Me Factual Solid Evidence
We've seen so far 5 people involved in the clinton email scandal coverup being excluded from due process, and they were given immunity to plead the fifth. That shit doesn't happen. You're supposed to have given something in return for such priviledge. FFS. The FBI spent less time interrogating Hillary clinton than Angelina Jolie.
Just days after the investigation, FBI Director James Comey announced to the world that he would not press charges against Clinton, despite admitting she had been “extremely careless” when she used a private, unsecured e-mail server to conduct State Department business.
We can't show you factual evidence because it's hidden behind red tape, government secrecy acts, and verbal agreements. She's being protected by the system because the system would rather hide the truth and let controversy take its course than admit to incompetence, corruption, and scandals.
Why do you think saudi arabia / wall street paid her a bunch of money in speaking fees through her foundation? Because she's such an excellent speaker? We saw the transcripts that leaked. Her net worth to the american people and their interest is in the negatives. this is all smoke and mirrors to put up a pretense that everything is above board.
Let's not be idiots here. Realpolitik -unless it is a war- will never done above board, and when it finally surfaces the people involved are usually dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
