|
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 05:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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
Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot.
|
On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot.
You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop.
|
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.
This is way more consensus than we usually get. I will take this.
|
They hold off and bring it to congress to impeach the president, citing that they did not want to interfere with the transfer of power or the election process. Then congress holds public hearings as the set out in the articles of the Constitution.
You are an attorney, you shouldn’t have to have these questions answered for you.
|
Glad to see troops are entering Mosul - the joint Obama-Iraqi plot to get Hillary elected is underway.
|
On November 04 2016 05:37 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot. You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop.
You may want to actually fucking pay attention to what my point is before talking.
See here.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 04 2016 05:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Glad to see troops are entering Mosul - the joint Obama-Iraqi plot to get Hillary elected is underway.
The elephant of surprise was unstoppable.
|
On November 04 2016 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:37 hunts wrote:On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot. You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop. You may want to actually fucking pay attention to what my point is before talking.
Unfortunately I have and your points are literally baseless assumptions and high fantasy of what you hope is happening in order to justify your ideas.
|
On November 04 2016 05:34 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 04:56 Gorsameth wrote: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.
Immunity deals happen fairly regularly, this is not something shocking. FBI need access to something, they don't have court granted permission to just take it. So they ask someone who is not the main target of investigations for access in return for not using that access to indict them.
Ever hear of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Same situation, except instead of "immunity for selling out your cohort", it's immunity for the initial evidence.
|
In other news, Eric Trump can't even disavow a KKK member properly
Eric Trump: David Duke 'deserves a bullet'
(CNN)Eric Trump said on Thursday that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke deserves "a bullet."
"Ross, it's disgusting and by the way, if I said exactly what you said, I'd get killed for it but I think I'll say it anyway," the Republican nominee's son said after host Ross Kaminsky of 630 KHOW Denver radio suggested Duke deserves a bullet to the head. "The guy does deserve a bullet. I mean, these aren't good people. These are horrible people. In fact, I commend my father. My father's the first Republican who's gone out and said, 'Listen, what's happened to the African-American community is horrible and I'm going to take care of it.'"
Source
|
On November 04 2016 05:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Glad to see troops are entering Mosul - the joint Obama-Iraqi plot to get Hillary elected is underway. The elephant of surprise was unstoppable.
It doesnt matter, Douglass MacArthur is turning in his grave.
|
On November 04 2016 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:37 hunts wrote:On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot. You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop. You may want to actually fucking pay attention to what my point is before talking. See here.
Your points are baseless. They have no evidence.
You can thought experiment this all you want, but the reality is that there's no evidence of any of this shit that you keep claiming.
The FBI’s New York field office was one of a few that — in at least some small way — were looking into topics that touched on the Clinton Foundation’s work, according to people familiar with the matter. Agents in New York wanted to examine allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest that have swirled around the charitable organization of the Clinton family, the people said.
It is unclear what, if any, evidence they had to substantiate those allegations, particularly through subpoenas or search warrants. One person familiar with the matter said their presentation drew at least in part from media accounts over various foundation-related controversies.
That person, as the others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of facing professional consequences for discussing the politically sensitive matter.
Republicans have long been critical of the Clinton Foundation, in particular Hillary Clinton’s dealings with its donors while she was secretary of state. When FBI agents met with prosecutors to argue for a more significant look into the foundation, the GOP was especially eager to attack the philanthropic organization during the height of the political primary season.
The revelation, though, that public integrity section prosecutors — who are not politically appointed — felt FBI investigators did not have a case is a strong defense for Clinton. The agents’ aggressive posture regarding the Clinton Foundation also could add to the perception that the bureau is treating the Democratic presidential candidate unfairly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agents-pressed-justice-unsuccessfully-for-probe-of-clinton-foundation/2016/10/30/98c823ec-9ee9-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html
|
On November 04 2016 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:In other news, Eric Trump can't even disavow a KKK member properly Show nested quote +
Eric Trump: David Duke 'deserves a bullet'
(CNN)Eric Trump said on Thursday that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke deserves "a bullet."
"Ross, it's disgusting and by the way, if I said exactly what you said, I'd get killed for it but I think I'll say it anyway," the Republican nominee's son said after host Ross Kaminsky of 630 KHOW Denver radio suggested Duke deserves a bullet to the head. "The guy does deserve a bullet. I mean, these aren't good people. These are horrible people. In fact, I commend my father. My father's the first Republican who's gone out and said, 'Listen, what's happened to the African-American community is horrible and I'm going to take care of it.'"
Source
So despite all the ranting about the "leftists", it's up to Eric Trump to actually start talking about white genocide...
|
Melania Trump says she'd work to improve a social media culture that has gotten "too mean and too tough" -- riddled with insults based on "looks and intelligence" -- if she becomes first lady.
But she didn't make any mention of the Twitter activities of her husband, Donald Trump, who has relentlessly attacked his political foes, journalists, critics and other entertainers for years with demeaning comments based on their appearances and intelligence.
CNN
|
On November 04 2016 05:47 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:37 hunts wrote:On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot. You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop. You may want to actually fucking pay attention to what my point is before talking. See here. Your points are baseless. They have no evidence. You can thought experiment this all you want, but the reality is that there's no evidence of any of this shit that you keep claiming. Show nested quote +The FBI’s New York field office was one of a few that — in at least some small way — were looking into topics that touched on the Clinton Foundation’s work, according to people familiar with the matter. Agents in New York wanted to examine allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest that have swirled around the charitable organization of the Clinton family, the people said.
It is unclear what, if any, evidence they had to substantiate those allegations, particularly through subpoenas or search warrants. One person familiar with the matter said their presentation drew at least in part from media accounts over various foundation-related controversies.
That person, as the others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of facing professional consequences for discussing the politically sensitive matter.
Republicans have long been critical of the Clinton Foundation, in particular Hillary Clinton’s dealings with its donors while she was secretary of state. When FBI agents met with prosecutors to argue for a more significant look into the foundation, the GOP was especially eager to attack the philanthropic organization during the height of the political primary season.
The revelation, though, that public integrity section prosecutors — who are not politically appointed — felt FBI investigators did not have a case is a strong defense for Clinton. The agents’ aggressive posture regarding the Clinton Foundation also could add to the perception that the bureau is treating the Democratic presidential candidate unfairly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agents-pressed-justice-unsuccessfully-for-probe-of-clinton-foundation/2016/10/30/98c823ec-9ee9-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html
*COUGH* *COUGH* Pay attention. *COUGH*
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.
|
On November 04 2016 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Melania Trump says she'd work to improve a social media culture that has gotten "too mean and too tough" -- riddled with insults based on "looks and intelligence" -- if she becomes first lady.
But she didn't make any mention of the Twitter activities of her husband, Donald Trump, who has relentlessly attacked his political foes, journalists, critics and other entertainers for years with demeaning comments based on their appearances and intelligence. CNN
And even with Donald Trump popularity in being un-PC, Melania Trump says she wants to make Twitter a giant safe space.
Campaign can't even stay consistent on the dumb things.
|
|
|
On November 04 2016 05:47 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:37 hunts wrote:On November 04 2016 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Let's conduct a thought experiment to show just how absurd this is. Let's say that FBI agents have compelling evidence that a political candidate had murdered someone. Let's further presume those FBI agents took the evidence to their superiors requesting that further investigation be pursued, and the superiors refused the request and shut down the investigation for corrupt reasons. Your argument is that the real threat to democracy would be the FBI agents pushing for an investigation instead of the corrupt superiors suppressing evidence for the sake of the political candidate. Sorry, but that doesn't look so hot. You are making as many baseless assumptions now as nettles or zeo. Just stop. You may want to actually fucking pay attention to what my point is before talking. See here. Your points are baseless. They have no evidence. You can thought experiment this all you want, but the reality is that there's no evidence of any of this shit that you keep claiming. Show nested quote +The FBI’s New York field office was one of a few that — in at least some small way — were looking into topics that touched on the Clinton Foundation’s work, according to people familiar with the matter. Agents in New York wanted to examine allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest that have swirled around the charitable organization of the Clinton family, the people said.
It is unclear what, if any, evidence they had to substantiate those allegations, particularly through subpoenas or search warrants. One person familiar with the matter said their presentation drew at least in part from media accounts over various foundation-related controversies.
That person, as the others in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of facing professional consequences for discussing the politically sensitive matter.
Republicans have long been critical of the Clinton Foundation, in particular Hillary Clinton’s dealings with its donors while she was secretary of state. When FBI agents met with prosecutors to argue for a more significant look into the foundation, the GOP was especially eager to attack the philanthropic organization during the height of the political primary season.
The revelation, though, that public integrity section prosecutors — who are not politically appointed — felt FBI investigators did not have a case is a strong defense for Clinton. The agents’ aggressive posture regarding the Clinton Foundation also could add to the perception that the bureau is treating the Democratic presidential candidate unfairly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agents-pressed-justice-unsuccessfully-for-probe-of-clinton-foundation/2016/10/30/98c823ec-9ee9-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html
Your going to end up with xDaunt explaining to you how you dont understand his point when he goes back and start giving meaning to the stupid vagaries he presented.
edit: nevermind he already did.
|
I have little patience for people telling me repeatedly what I've already admitted while completely missing the larger point that I'm trying to make. So disappointing.
|
On November 04 2016 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:In other news, Eric Trump can't even disavow a KKK member properly Show nested quote +
Eric Trump: David Duke 'deserves a bullet'
(CNN)Eric Trump said on Thursday that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke deserves "a bullet."
"Ross, it's disgusting and by the way, if I said exactly what you said, I'd get killed for it but I think I'll say it anyway," the Republican nominee's son said after host Ross Kaminsky of 630 KHOW Denver radio suggested Duke deserves a bullet to the head. "The guy does deserve a bullet. I mean, these aren't good people. These are horrible people. In fact, I commend my father. My father's the first Republican who's gone out and said, 'Listen, what's happened to the African-American community is horrible and I'm going to take care of it.'"
Source
Can't get a much stronger disavowal than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
