|
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. |
didn't we have fbi agents saying that clinton was totally gonna go down from the first email-gate?
|
On November 04 2016 06:11 oneofthem 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. how did you conjure up this scenario of elaborate and multileveled corruption of career fbi senior leadership, doj attorneys and corruption investigators?
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge.
|
and xdaunt is the first to godwin in this discussion (unless someone already did earlier? if so apologies for missing it)
|
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins.
|
On November 04 2016 06:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:08 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2016 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2016 06:02 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2016 05:56 xDaunt wrote:
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. The only FBI leaks we like around here are ones where agents call the Bureau "Trumplandia." A statement many took or are taking at face value. Because, shockingly, talking about work place environment is not of national concern, and FBI agents wanting to take justice into their own hands is. Not of national concern, which is why it's being reported everywhere and being used as evidence that those other leakers are just Trumpists. "National concern" as in threatening to public rights. Not the same as "interesting on a national level".
You think that's being breathlessly repeated because it's "interesting"?
They've got people leaking all over the place, I think when Comey first sent his letter there were agents talking to reporters then, too.
But instead we're concerned about this one story. The "Trumplandia" comment is an attempt to continue this discrediting of the FBI (by people previously singing their praises) that's going on right now. It's just as important.
|
On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins.
The Clinton Foundation is already planning to stop accepting donations from foreign sources if Hillary wins and Bill will resign from the board.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins.
The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally.
That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity.
Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump?
|
clinton foundation will largely be scaled down. a lot of its work will shift to other orgs, some of which are currently under the clinton foundations umbrella but will effectively be divested. bill, hillary and other members of their circle involved in politics will stop their involvement. the chinese firewall wont be perfect, but itll be pretty good considering the degree of scrutiny its under anyways.
i get why they have to do it, but its a crying shame that this has to happen and could impact the great work theyre doing right now.
now compare that to the arrangements for the trump org.
|
Forget the Trump Foundation, Trump isn't even putting his businesses in a blind trust. His kids will run it and he will avoid being involved. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska. I fully expect him to try to run state dinners out of the hotel he build in DC. At minimum he will try hire his own vendors to provide food and catering.
|
I am as big a Hillbot as anyone, but even I think they should wind down the CGI while Hillary is President. It is worth noting it was mostly Bill's foundation not Hill's. Maybe hand it off to someone else and rename it? Keeping CGI open is just too much. Every other day we are going to have some stupid headline from a Trumpkin claiming he found proof that a CGI donor bought the President.
|
On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump?
You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption.
|
On November 04 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump? You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption.
I take it you missed the part where Trump has been using the charity to pay his legal fees and litigation costs? And several attorneys have reviewed the findings and determined they were illegal. And buying portraits of himself, but mostly the self dealing using other people’s money.
|
On November 04 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump? You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption.
didn't you also post yesterday that trump needs to be surrounded by whitehouse establishment to advise him?
|
On November 04 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump? You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption.
But we must not allow the corrupt Killary in the White House.
|
On November 04 2016 06:44 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump? You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption. didn't you also post yesterday that trump needs to be surrounded by whitehouse establishment to advise him?
And claimed that the Republicans would pick good people for him, which is not how the White House works in anyway.
There are days I desperately want to talk to Biomajor’s civics teacher and find out what the fuck happened.
|
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty)
|
On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty)
Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards.
|
On November 04 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:33 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 06:27 biology]major wrote:
Either way, what is to be done about the clinton foundation if HRC wins? Why have they not addressed this, I remember even the NY times said it was unethical to have that be accepting money from foreign governments while HRC is president. I hate this election, and the sad part is it isn't even going to end regardless of who wins. The Foundation has publicly scrutinized books, same as any other. It also spends the money on fighting AIDS in Africa, it's unlikely to present too much of an ethical dilemma for Hillary. A donation to the Clinton Foundation is not a donation to Clinton personally. That said she may just decide to automatically forward any donations to another charity, or some similar system, to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing among the paranoid. Not that it'll help. Reality being on her side hasn't helped so far with the Clinton Foundation which, by all accounts, is a legitimate charity. Why aren't you asking the same of the Trump Foundation, given that it has been demonstrated that the Trump Foundation is a political and business slush fund for Trump? You know I would never question Trump like that, Jk yeah same applies to his charity as well. The conflict of interest when Trump wins is going to be insane though, I don't see him making decisions with clarity regarding what is right and what benefits his own business. In the end Trump is just a symptom, and the cause is the establishment elite that has not only forgotten a large portion of the electorate but is now gloating in it's own corruption.
I don't htink you've ever lived under actual severe corruption; unless you've lived in some places other than the US; have you?
also, the notion that some sort of "establishment" has forgotten something, as if things used to be better and have gotten substantially worse in the corruption department, is absurd.
also, the establishment provided several people who are better than trump, they just weren't voted for.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:11 oneofthem 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. how did you conjure up this scenario of elaborate and multileveled corruption of career fbi senior leadership, doj attorneys and corruption investigators? You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process
|
On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards.
That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
