schedules
rosters
news
standings
tickets
vucommodores link by sport
forum
FTB_LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK_
MBB_LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK_
WBB_LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK_
BAS_LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK__LINK_

Trump was right!

For non-Vanderbilt sports discussion including but not limited to politics, science, the arts, travel, technology, entertainment, food & drink and more.

Moderators: Vandyman74, roanoke, VandyWhit, kerrigjl, BrentVU, jfgogold, NateSY, KarenYates


vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump had it completely BACKWARDS!

Postby vebiltdervan » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:53 pm

3rdFloor wrote:FBI looks a little sleazy.

Agreed!—& a couple of congressmen nail it: “The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report is that the FBI’s actions helped Donald Trump become President,” Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said in a joint statement. “As we warned before the election, Director Comey had a double-standard: he spoke publicly about the Clinton investigation while keeping secret from the American people the investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.”

EllistonVU
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:13 am
Contact:

Re: Trump was right!

Postby EllistonVU » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:38 pm

And then Comey got screwed by tRUMP

Did you ever hear the native American folktale that ends with the line "but you knew I was a snake when you picked me up"

Golddore68
Posts: 5073
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump was right!

Postby Golddore68 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:04 pm

Comey got screwed by Trump? How?

If I had done my job as ineptly as he did his job as FBI director I would have been fired too.

According to the report he didn’t know that Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner were married. How could you not know this? It’s been prominently in the news for the past four-five years, ever since Weiner has gotten in trouble for sexting 16-year-olds.

Also according to the report Hillary DID violate the law with her e-mails, despite Comey clearing her and acting like it was no big deal that she sent classified e-mails to personal computers, a major violation of the law.

Furthermore Hillary’s classified e-mails were seen by “foreign agents.” This is what I and others have been saying all along but you guys scoffed at me. Hillary is every bit as guilty of this “collusion” as Trump, maybe more so. She’s been irresponsible with top secret classified e-mails that leaders from other countries were able to see. Maybe they were about the election. Who knows. She also got money from foreign countries like Russia illegally through the Clinton Foundation, which she used towards the election. Collusion, indeed.

Plus the FBI agents — who are supposed to be unbiased and objective — sent texts saying they were going to bring down Trump.

User avatar
cjdore
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:13 am
Contact:

Re: Trump had it completely BACKWARDS!

Postby cjdore » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:48 am

vebiltdervan wrote:
3rdFloor wrote:FBI looks a little sleazy.

Agreed!—& a couple of congressmen nail it: “The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report is that the FBI’s actions helped Donald Trump become President,” Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said in a joint statement. “As we warned before the election, Director Comey had a double-standard: he spoke publicly about the Clinton investigation while keeping secret from the American people the investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.”

As I frequently do with this poster....I call BS!!!! With Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page exchanging messages exposes the real problem. Strzok headed up the HRC investigation and Russian investigation and when asked by Lisa if "He's not ever going to be President right, Right?, he stated "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"

How you can possibly think that the FBI favored Trump shows your raw ignorance to the subject matter. After all, Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to be at HRC's questioning even though she herself was under investigation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... veals.html


vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump had it completely BACKWARDS!

Postby vebiltdervan » Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:51 pm

cjdore wrote:As I frequently do with this poster...I call BS!!!! With Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page exchanging messages exposes the real problem. Strzok headed up the HRC investigation and Russian investigation and when asked by Lisa if "He's not ever going to be President right, Right?, he stated "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"...How you can possibly think that the FBI favored Trump shows your [omitted in adherence to forum rules]. After all, Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to be at HRC's questioning even though she herself was under investigation...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... veals.html

Sometimes it seems to me that H.L. Mencken had cj specially in mind when he said, "For every complex problem, there Is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I will address my reply to the official Fox News party line—for which cj has acted as conduit. Fox zeroes in on the quotation from Strzok & Page, as if that email couplet had been the Principal Conclusion of the IG's 500-page report. There is a reason why that was not the case. That reason is that Strzok & Page, in their capacities as FBI agents, in no way let their anti-Trump bias filter through to their FBI work. Nor did anyone else in the FBI (except arguably James Comey, to whom we shall return).

Strzok & Page were two of five FBI employees whom the IG recommended for possible disciplinary action (Ms Page has already left the Bureau; Mr. Strzok was previously reassigned away from the Mueller investigation team, when the above & similar emails first came to light). But the relevant conclusion of the IG was that “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations...Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.

With respect to Strzok & Page, that is the relevant bottom line; moreover it is the first-listed official Conclusion of the report. So its significance should be underscored.

How is this possible that Strzok & Page should be so obviously biased, & yet their bias have not affected their FBI work? Simple: this sort of thing happens all the time, for many or most of us. People compartmentalize their personal feelings and keep them at a remove from their work product all the time. For example, due to the personal insults (among other things) I receive on this forum at the hands of cj, I confess that I am biased against him. And yet I do not retaliate in kind; I subordinate my emotional response in order to honor the forum's rules. Piece of cake for most grownups.

[A short digression to analyze Strzok's probable meaning. Strzok emailed: "No [Trump] won’t [win the election]. We’ll stop it". Fox, to serve their partisan purposes, assumes the worst possible interpretation: that he he wrote "we", Strzok was referring to himself & Page, or even to the FBI as a whole. There's no good reason to make this assumption, & the fact that their work output has been minutely investigated & the conclusion reached that neither Strzok & Page nor the FBI as a whole did any such thing strongly suggests that Strzok meant something very different when he referred to "we". Strzok himself, in the wake of the IG's report, has stated that he was not referring to himself & Page or to the FBI. His email message still makes perfect sense if by "we", Strzok is referring to the American voting populace. "We" American voters will not vote majority for Trump. He was perfectly correct in that prediction, but did not reckon with the Electoral College. I'm not defending Strzok's use of his FBI email account for personal messages; I'm just explaining his one particular message in a way that comports with the known facts far better than the "clear, simple and wrong" partisan conclusion leapt to by Fox.]

Fox has pushed a series of cryptic references to Cheryl Mills that border on paranoid fantasies, to which I will not bother to respond. It suffices for me to point out that—rather than finally finding that use of a private server and BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI! entailed illegal behavior on Hillary's part—the IG's report is simply the umpteenth objective evaluation that has concluded that the FBI's investigation of Clinton was conducted fully & properly & that no laws were broken.

All of which leaves the IG's new report's judgment on James Comey's as the major item of importance. Comey's behavior, his double-standard regarding the parallel FBI investigations into both presidential candidates: maximizing the public 'transparency' on the Hillary investigation, while keeping the Trump-Russia investigation completely hidden from the American public, is roundly condemned by the new IG report. The report concluded that Comey acted improperly/insubordinately each time he gave public airings about the FBI's Hillary investigation, all of which can only be viewed as having aided the Trump campaign by damaging the Hillary campaign.

I stand by the accuracy of my previous short post. Just like Trump, Fox lies to its often-gullible listeners every time it implies otherwise, every time it pretends that the IG report insinuates in any way that the FBI's investigations somehow favored Hillary over Trump, when the very opposite is the actual case.

Trump's & Fox's is a Goebbels-type Big Lie, repeated over & over & over again, despite any grain of truth to it. And those who either are not capable of doing, or simply fail to do their own homework & thinking are led astray. 180° astray.

User avatar
WestCoastDore
Posts: 2128
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:03 pm
Contact:

FBI was not clean on this

Postby WestCoastDore » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:10 pm

vebiltdervan wrote:
cjdore wrote:As I frequently do with this poster...I call BS!!!! With Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page exchanging messages exposes the real problem. Strzok headed up the HRC investigation and Russian investigation and when asked by Lisa if "He's not ever going to be President right, Right?, he stated "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"...How you can possibly think that the FBI favored Trump shows your [omitted in adherence to forum rules]. After all, Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to be at HRC's questioning even though she herself was under investigation...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... veals.html

Sometimes it seems to me that H.L. Mencken had cj specially in mind when he said, "For every complex problem, there Is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I will address my reply to the official Fox News party line—for which cj has acted as conduit. Fox zeroes in on the quotation from Strzok & Page, as if that email couplet had been the Principal Conclusion of the IG's 500-page report. There is a reason why that was not the case. That reason is that Strzok & Page, in their capacities as FBI agents, in no way let their anti-Trump bias filter through to their FBI work. Nor did anyone else in the FBI (except arguably James Comey, to whom we shall return).

Strzok & Page were two of five FBI employees whom the IG recommended for possible disciplinary action (Ms Page has already left the Bureau; Mr. Strzok was previously reassigned away from the Mueller investigation team, when the above & similar emails first came to light). But the relevant conclusion of the IG was that “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations...Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.

With respect to Strzok & Page, that is the relevant bottom line; moreover it is the first-listed official Conclusion of the report. So its significance should be underscored.

How is this possible that Strzok & Page should be so obviously biased, & yet their bias have not affected their FBI work? Simple: this sort of thing happens all the time, for many or most of us. People compartmentalize their personal feelings and keep them at a remove from their work product all the time. For example, due to the personal insults (among other things) I receive on this forum at the hands of cj, I confess that I am biased against him. And yet I do not retaliate in kind; I subordinate my emotional response in order to honor the forum's rules. Piece of cake for most grownups.

[A short digression to analyze Strzok's probable meaning. Strzok emailed: "No [Trump] won’t [win the election]. We’ll stop it". Fox, to serve their partisan purposes, assumes the worst possible interpretation: that he he wrote "we", Strzok was referring to himself & Page, or even to the FBI as a whole. There's no good reason to make this assumption, & the fact that their work output has been minutely investigated & the conclusion reached that neither Strzok & Page nor the FBI as a whole did any such thing strongly suggests that Strzok meant something very different when he referred to "we". Strzok himself, in the wake of the IG's report, has stated that he was not referring to himself & Page or to the FBI. His email message still makes perfect sense if by "we", Strzok is referring to the American voting populace. "We" American voters will not vote majority for Trump. He was perfectly correct in that prediction, but did not reckon with the Electoral College. I'm not defending Strzok's use of his FBI email account for personal messages; I'm just explaining his one particular message in a way that comports with the known facts far better than the "clear, simple and wrong" partisan conclusion leapt to by Fox.]

Fox has pushed a series of cryptic references to Cheryl Mills that border on paranoid fantasies, to which I will not bother to respond. It suffices for me to point out that—rather than finally finding that use of a private server and BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI! entailed illegal behavior on Hillary's part—the IG's report is simply the umpteenth objective evaluation that has concluded that the FBI's investigation of Clinton was conducted fully & properly & that no laws were broken.

All of which leaves the IG's new report's judgment on James Comey's as the major item of importance. Comey's behavior, his double-standard regarding the parallel FBI investigations into both presidential candidates: maximizing the public 'transparency' on the Hillary investigation, while keeping the Trump-Russia investigation completely hidden from the American public, is roundly condemned by the new IG report. The report concluded that Comey acted improperly/insubordinately each time he gave public airings about the FBI's Hillary investigation, all of which can only be viewed as having aided the Trump campaign by damaging the Hillary campaign.

I stand by the accuracy of my previous short post. Just like Trump, Fox lies to its often-gullible listeners every time it implies otherwise, every time it pretends that the IG report insinuates in any way that the FBI's investigations somehow favored Hillary over Trump, when the very opposite is the actual case.

Trump's & Fox's is a Goebbels-type Big Lie, repeated over & over & over again, despite any grain of truth to it. And those who either are not capable of doing, or simply fail to do their own homework & thinking are led astray. 180° astray.



So if I understand this correctly, what we have here are two different opinions.

One from Fox news which, while definitely pro-Trump, has also been known to be critical of him at times.

The second from a poster who has always been anti-Trump, always been critical of him ad nausea, has yet to accept the legal results from the last presidential election and often appears to suffer from Putin paranoia.

Admittedly, it's extremely difficult to reconcile the biases of those whose thinking have led them astray.

So I'm going to accept the report as a stern rebuke of Comey and that some senior bureau officials displayed a disturbing “willingness to take official action” to hurt Trump’s chances to become president.

Not a proof that FBI spied on the Trump campaign but more sleazy than they should be in the election process.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: FBI was not clean on this

Postby vebiltdervan » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:14 pm

WestCoastDore wrote:...The second [opinion is] from a poster who has always been anti-Trump, always been critical of him ad nausea[sic], has yet to accept the legal results from the last presidential election...
I will stop you right there, because that right there is a blatant lie.

You are welcome to your opinion that my opinions are "paranoia"; you are not welcome to blatantly lie about my opinions.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: FBI was not clean on this

Postby vebiltdervan » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:15 pm

vebiltdervan wrote:
WestCoastDore wrote:...The second [opinion is] from a poster who has always been anti-Trump, always been critical of him ad nausea[sic], has yet to accept the legal results from the last presidential election...
I will stop you right there, because that right there is a blatant lie.

You are welcome to your opinion that my opinions are "paranoia"; you are not welcome to blatantly lie about what I have said.

User avatar
WestCoastDore
Posts: 2128
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: FBI was not clean on this

Postby WestCoastDore » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:15 pm

vebiltdervan wrote:
WestCoastDore wrote:...The second [opinion is] from a poster who has always been anti-Trump, always been critical of him ad nausea[sic], has yet to accept the legal results from the last presidential election...
I will stop you right there, because that right there is a blatant lie.

You are welcome to your opinion that my opinions are "paranoia"; you are not welcome to blatantly lie about my opinions.



Sorry if I'm confused, but are you saying that you now accept the legal results from the last presidential election?

vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: FBI was not clean on this

Postby vebiltdervan » Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:16 pm

WestCoastDore wrote:Sorry if I'm confused, but are you saying that you now accept the legal results from the last presidential election?
Ah, now that's a trick question. You've placed two words together—"legal" and "results"—that do not necessarily have single meanings individually, much less conjoined.

Let's put my position this way: I accept that the results of the 2016 Electoral College will never be disproven &/or overturned. But I do question—without ever suggesting/asserting that we will someday know for sure—whether all the individual state results were 100% "legal", due to the fact that a large number of voters in a small number of states apparently may have had their presidential choices altered by illegal foreign interferences.

This is essentially identical to my position vis-a-vis the Illinois vote in the 1960 election, which gave the victory to Kennedy. Even if this were 1.5 years later, instead of almost 58 years later, the high probability that Mayor Daley engineered massive illegal ballot stuffing cannot negate Kennedy's election. We will never know for sure that Kennedy's election was illegal, but today any knowledgeable American will tell you that Kennedy almost certainly won because of a rigged election. And someday—& it will IMHO not take very many years—every knowledgeable person will tell you that Trump almost certainly won an improperly rigged election: that's my personal prediction.

Sure I've occasionally stated that Trump is "not my president", but that's just a personal psychological report. I've never, at any time, questioned the effectiveness of the Electoral College result. I've questioned & I question its 100% legality, yes; its effectiveness in the real world, no.

This distinction may be a bit esoteric to you. But even so I suggest that you refrain from portraying my character as something flaky, rather than that of a scientist with a reality-based weltanschauung, albeit one leavened with a fondness for speculation about legitimate possibilities (i.e., statistical possibilities, as distinct from legality-based possibilities). No one here complained when some of the wells that I proposed drilling in the 70s & 80s—based on my geological speculations—did indeed discover/find oil (though environmentalists might well complain if I were still doing that now). That's the kind of speculation I'm referring to: things that have some statistical odds of being proven true. As distinct from the paranoid ravings you enjoy portraying them as.

But this is merely a request; it's not a big deal to me. Respect is overrated. The best payoff of all actually comes when & if I get to say, Well, well! Look what turned out to be true after all! You owe me a sizable apology, Big Boy! And thus far, I like the drilling prospects I've laid out around this election. Well, not around the election, really. Around the Trump presidency. Which is a real thing, but which also has a very real statistical chance of being terminated for extremely valid Constitutional reasons.

User avatar
cjdore
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:13 am
Contact:

Re: Trump had it completely BACKWARDS!

Postby cjdore » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:51 am

vebiltdervan wrote:
cjdore wrote:As I frequently do with this poster...I call BS!!!! With Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page exchanging messages exposes the real problem. Strzok headed up the HRC investigation and Russian investigation and when asked by Lisa if "He's not ever going to be President right, Right?, he stated "No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it"...How you can possibly think that the FBI favored Trump shows your [omitted in adherence to forum rules]. After all, Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to be at HRC's questioning even though she herself was under investigation...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06 ... veals.html

Sometimes it seems to me that H.L. Mencken had cj specially in mind when he said, "For every complex problem, there Is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I will address my reply to the official Fox News party line—for which cj has acted as conduit. Fox zeroes in on the quotation from Strzok & Page, as if that email couplet had been the Principal Conclusion of the IG's 500-page report. There is a reason why that was not the case. That reason is that Strzok & Page, in their capacities as FBI agents, in no way let their anti-Trump bias filter through to their FBI work. Nor did anyone else in the FBI (except arguably James Comey, to whom we shall return).

Strzok & Page were two of five FBI employees whom the IG recommended for possible disciplinary action (Ms Page has already left the Bureau; Mr. Strzok was previously reassigned away from the Mueller investigation team, when the above & similar emails first came to light). But the relevant conclusion of the IG was that “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations...Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.

With respect to Strzok & Page, that is the relevant bottom line; moreover it is the first-listed official Conclusion of the report. So its significance should be underscored.

How is this possible that Strzok & Page should be so obviously biased, & yet their bias have not affected their FBI work? Simple: this sort of thing happens all the time, for many or most of us. People compartmentalize their personal feelings and keep them at a remove from their work product all the time. For example, due to the personal insults (among other things) I receive on this forum at the hands of cj, I confess that I am biased against him. And yet I do not retaliate in kind; I subordinate my emotional response in order to honor the forum's rules. Piece of cake for most grownups.

[A short digression to analyze Strzok's probable meaning. Strzok emailed: "No [Trump] won’t [win the election]. We’ll stop it". Fox, to serve their partisan purposes, assumes the worst possible interpretation: that he he wrote "we", Strzok was referring to himself & Page, or even to the FBI as a whole. There's no good reason to make this assumption, & the fact that their work output has been minutely investigated & the conclusion reached that neither Strzok & Page nor the FBI as a whole did any such thing strongly suggests that Strzok meant something very different when he referred to "we". Strzok himself, in the wake of the IG's report, has stated that he was not referring to himself & Page or to the FBI. His email message still makes perfect sense if by "we", Strzok is referring to the American voting populace. "We" American voters will not vote majority for Trump. He was perfectly correct in that prediction, but did not reckon with the Electoral College. I'm not defending Strzok's use of his FBI email account for personal messages; I'm just explaining his one particular message in a way that comports with the known facts far better than the "clear, simple and wrong" partisan conclusion leapt to by Fox.]

Fox has pushed a series of cryptic references to Cheryl Mills that border on paranoid fantasies, to which I will not bother to respond. It suffices for me to point out that—rather than finally finding that use of a private server and BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI!–BENGHAZI! entailed illegal behavior on Hillary's part—the IG's report is simply the umpteenth objective evaluation that has concluded that the FBI's investigation of Clinton was conducted fully & properly & that no laws were broken.

All of which leaves the IG's new report's judgment on James Comey's as the major item of importance. Comey's behavior, his double-standard regarding the parallel FBI investigations into both presidential candidates: maximizing the public 'transparency' on the Hillary investigation, while keeping the Trump-Russia investigation completely hidden from the American public, is roundly condemned by the new IG report. The report concluded that Comey acted improperly/insubordinately each time he gave public airings about the FBI's Hillary investigation, all of which can only be viewed as having aided the Trump campaign by damaging the Hillary campaign.

I stand by the accuracy of my previous short post. Just like Trump, Fox lies to its often-gullible listeners every time it implies otherwise, every time it pretends that the IG report insinuates in any way that the FBI's investigations somehow favored Hillary over Trump, when the very opposite is the actual case.

Trump's & Fox's is a Goebbels-type Big Lie, repeated over & over & over again, despite any grain of truth to it. And those who either are not capable of doing, or simply fail to do their own homework & thinking are led astray. 180° astray.


Where does one start with this slanted reply? Let me start with Strzok. His comments to his illicit lover page were made 8 days after he was put on the Russian investigative team. He was also one of the lead investigators on the HRC investigation. I have heard that he told fellow agents to go easy on HRC because she most likely would be elected Pres and they would not want her as an enemy. Neither I nor Fox news could make this up. You went leaped further and stated the following:
"The report concluded that Comey acted improperly/insubordinately each time he gave public airings about the FBI's Hillary investigation, all of which can only be viewed as having aided the Trump campaign by damaging the Hillary campaign."

My understanding of the report is that it made no such assumption and if it did it would be a complete and utter fabrication. HRC had her emails subpoenaed by Congress and she subsequently deleted them, scrubbed the hard drives and destroyed Blackberries with hammers. If this is not destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, I am missing something. I would hope that one of our legal scholars could answer this rather than Dr rock.

vebiltdervan
Posts: 19547
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump had it completely BACKWARDS!

Postby vebiltdervan » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:50 pm

cj wrote:Where does one start with this slanted reply?...
I'll tell you: One should start by citing any IG REPORT CONCLUSIONS that support your own slanted reply. Unfortunately for you, the IG Report's conclusions render you entirely incapable of doing so. Case in point:

cj wrote:...Let me start with Strzok. His comments to his illicit lover page were made 8 days after he was put on the Russian investigative team. He was also one of the lead investigators on the HRC investigation...
All of which was irrelevant to the Clinton email investigation, PER THE IG REPORT, except inasmuch as it results in ADDITIONAL personal discipline measures on Strzok (Page has left the FBI). Here once more is the relevant conclusion of the IG Report: the IG found “no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.” I am prepared to repeat this as many times as necessary, until it sinks in.

As for any effect of Strzok's bias on the Trump-Russia investigation, A) one would have to assume, without any evidence, that Strzok—although he completely separated any personal bias from influencing the FBI's decisions on the Hillary email investigation, nevertheless acted 180° differently in the Trump-Russia investigation. This seems unlikely, to say the least. B) Moreover, once the Trump-Russia investigation team (including Strzok) been delegated in part to Robert Mueller's team, Strzok was removed from the Mueller team and shipped to a "human resources"-type job back at the FBI, the first instant that his & Page's biased personal emails were made known to Mueller. Strzok has already been effectively disciplined once for his inappropriate use of FBI communications.

The IG did state that he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” That's a possibility, but in any case the effect of that was to delay Comey's announcement of the reopening of the Clinton email investigation until the week before the election, which very arguably created the last-minute drop in Hillary support that resulted in Trump's victory. It certainly in no conceivable way benefited Hillary. (By the way, notice that I'm not arguing by the use of "slant": I'm arguing based on facts, and qualifying my conclusions as appropriate, e.g., "arguably".)

cjdore wrote:...I have heard that [Strzok] told fellow agents to go easy on HRC because she most likely would be elected Pres and they would not want her as an enemy. Neither I nor Fox news could make this up...
OK, now we see the use of slant in a post. The vaguest of citations ("Fox news could [not] make this up"), while resorting to unsupported hearsay.

Here's where I believe this whole line of BS hearsay springs from: a headline in a short op-ed piece in The Federalist. The relevant lines in this piece are:
"On February 25, 2016, Page sent Strzok the following message when discussing the appropriate number of DOJ and FBI personnel that should be assigned to the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private, unsecured e-mail server during her tenure as secretary of State...'One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?'...Strzok replied: 'Agreed. I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees. I will email you and [redacted] same.'"

Again, the two are speaking of the appropriate number of FBI agents to assign to join DOJ personnel in the investigation. They are not referring in any way to limiting the number of total agents in any way. There is no talk here of "going easy on HRC," as is insinuated above by cj. Was the consideration that Hillary "might be our next president" (note: this was at the time a statement of fact) an appropriate consideration at that moment? Arguably not. Was it in any way a conspiracy to cripple the HRC investigation? No, it was emphatically not.

NEVERTHELESS, The Federalist titled their op-ed piece, "Top FBI Agents Discussed Taking It Easy On Hillary: ‘She Might Be Our Next President’". It is a blatant & gross exaggeration to claim that Page & Strzok "discussed taking it easy on Hillary", period. That's an editorial slant, unsupported by the facts. Yet by the time this BS reaches cj, it's being report that Strzok & Page spoke the line, "take it easy on HRC": "I have heard that [Strzok] told fellow agents to go easy on HRC...". The Federalist op-ed headline has been transposed into a quotation directly from Strzok. It's a game a Telephone, & it's a complete lie.

cj wrote:...You went leaped further and stated the following: "The report concluded that Comey acted improperly/insubordinately each time he gave public airings about the FBI's Hillary investigation, all of which can only be viewed as having aided the Trump campaign by damaging the Hillary campaign."...
I stand by my statement that it can only be viewed that way. cj is welcome to present facts that would suggest otherwise. Let's see what he's got:
cj wrote:...My understanding of the report is that it made no such assumption and if it did it would be a complete and utter fabrication. HRC had her emails subpoenaed by Congress and she subsequently deleted them, scrubbed the hard drives and destroyed Blackberries with hammers. If this is not destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, I am missing something. I would hope that one of our legal scholars could answer this rather than Dr rock.
In the first place, I did not say that the IG Report made that assumption. If you read my sentence above, I accurately reported what the IG Report said about Comey, & then I gave my interpretation. cj's is a false claim.

As for his request for legal advice about whether Hillary broke the law, that question has been delved into how many times now? 8 or 9 congressional committee investigations, the FBI/DOJ investigation cited above, which was reopened by Comey, and now the IG's Report. None of which found illegal behavior by Hillary Clinton. This issue is dead umpteen times over; it is still an "open issue" only in the minds of the most prejudiced & slanted rightwingers. Give it up already.

Back to reality, readers here should be aware that the IG's investigation is still ongoing. Keep a close eye on this:
"There’s probably more to come":

'Horowitz [the IG] revealed that his office is conducting an investigation into FBI employees who “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”

...Horowitz’s team uncovered “numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization ... who were in frequent contact with reporters.”...Those unauthorized contacts, investigators say, are cause for “profound concerns” and a product of a “cultural attitude” within the bureau.

The office will issue a separate report on those investigations...The FBI’s New York office will be particularly closely watched. Democrats have long accused President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, of receiving nonpublic information about the investigation from agents...'
[emphasis added]

And following that, the IG will conduct a thorough evaluation of the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation. I'm looking forward to that!



Return to “Black and Gold Coffee Shop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ANCHORDOWN01, BILTMORE, EllistonVU, mathguy, Titans309fan, VandyWhit and 46 guests