The much-hyped IG report backfires

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure this guy is all over that  ….wanna guess who the guy Trump's posing with is? 

Isn't there pics of Bill Clinton and this guy also.... all over the internet? Or, maybe Clinton knew better then to take a photo with this guy?

Well he at least took a photo with this guy....

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

 

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Myself, I don't believe in the Deep State, but I do believe, at least in this case, that some very (Anti-Trump) hate filled individuals were actively working against him inside the FBI. The IG report (with only some text messages somehow weeded from millions), seems to point directly at that. It is why the Peter Strzok guy was pulled off the Russia case by Mueller.

So you accept the details in the report but not the conclusion of the report? 

Why would they even put those details in the report if they were just going to lie about them at the end of the report?

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Isn't there pics of Bill Clinton and this guy also.... all over the internet?

And Hillary. 

Hill and Trump have both been to his sex slave island. 

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

So you accept the details in the report but not the conclusion of the report? 

Why would they even put those details in the report if they were just going to lie about them at the end of the report?

It is obvious. There is no "Direct" evidence of bias being the reason for those individuals actions... So there can be no charges, or dismissal of the conclusion of the Clinton Email investigation, based off "Bias". The report is clear that individuals were saying and doing anti Trump activites, but proving that and proving that those individuals then used their bias to alter an election, or a FBI investigation, are two different things.

If, Peter Strzok had written somewhere... "I'm going to attempt to end this investigation because I hate Trump,and want Hillary to win...". Then that would direct evidence. But such was not found. Thus they can prove Bias, but not action based off bias.

Edited June 16, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

And Hillary. 

Hill and Trump have both been to his sex slave island. 

I'm going to start posting TGSDW (Thank God She Didn't Win). Because even though Trump is a mess. I'd hate to actually live under the manipulations of Frau Clinton even more.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The report is clear that individuals were saying and doing anti Trump activites, but proving that and proving that those individuals then used their bias to alter an election, or a FBI investigation, are two different things.

To the bolded : No they werent

They certainly were voicing their opinions of the election. Thats true

Really though if the fix was in. If the DOJ had decided they were going to sink Trump why didn't they do it during the election?  Why not tell the world at that time about the Russia investigation? Hell why not just frame him (if you think hes innocent)? 

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

I'm going to start posting TGSDW (Thank God She Didn't Win). Because even though Trump is a mess. I'd hate to actually live under the manipulations of Frau Clinton even more.

Man its so bad I find myself almost thinking the other way. Even knowing what I know now  I still couldn't actually pull the lever for her …...but almost 

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

I have to agree Lilly it is pretty clear.

At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." - source

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order source - source

That's all true, but it takes a well evidenced High Crime and Misdemeanor event to ever even get impeachment introduced. I just don't see that happening, even if Mueller indicts and convicts a thousand people that formerly worked for Trump... Unless there is a lot more "evidence" coming out.

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Quote

The report is clear that individuals were saying and doing anti Trump activites, but proving that and proving that those individuals then used their bias to alter an election, or a FBI investigation, are two different things.

To the bolded : No they werent

They certainly were voicing their opinions of the election. Thats true

Really though if the fix was in. If the DOJ had decided they were going to sink Trump why didn't they do it during the election?  Why not tell the world at that time about the Russia investigation? Hell why not just frame him (if you think hes innocent)? 

 

I stand corrected. That's what I get for typing faster then I should be thinking... 

[+DieChecker]

14 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Isn't there pics of Bill Clinton and this guy also.... all over the internet? Or, maybe Clinton knew better then to take a photo with this guy?

Well he at least took a photo with this guy....

 

Another funny one...

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

But he was impeached. And analysts have no doubt that Nixon would have been fully impeached and removed from office for obstruction.

I remember reading more about this when talk of Impeaching Trump started...

Basically Clinton was never fully impeached. Because the Senate voted to dismiss the charges. The House voted to impeach, which i don't think is exactly the same thing.

[+DieChecker]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:33 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

'Former FBI Director James Comey “deviated” from FBI and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton, damaging the law enforcement agencies’ image of impartiality even though he wasn’t motivated by political bias, the department’s watchdog found in a highly anticipated report.'

So the reported conclusion is basically that Comey acted improperly regarding Hillary, but in a way that was negative to her, not beneficial. And it also concluded that the FBI 'lovebirds' had zero effect on any investigation.

Of course, we already knew this. Let's see what else is revealed when the full report drops, but Republicans are already trying to make excuses for the disappointment:

While Democrats are obviously singing its praises:

Nunes Nothingburger 2.0 by the looks of things.

Predicted response: "Anyone who does not agree with our conspiracy theory is obviously a part of the conspiracy themselves".

 

I'd not say the IG report "Backfired". I'd say that it clearly illuminates a number of scumbags, but fall short of saying that there is evidence they did anything wrong. Due to lack of direct evidence.

I did find it funny when one Pudit was saying that it was probably Strzok's fault that Hillary lost. He seemingly tried to bury the Weiner laptop story till after the election, and then when the NY justice department pressed him on what he had done with the case, he was forced into the open and they had to contact Congress with an update on the Clinton Email invesigation. And then that possibly led directly to Hillary getting smeared and possibly loosing. "Hill"larious... That a staunch supporter actually under cut her chances out of a desire to cover up.

Also the comment of the finding of a "culture" of leaking to the Media by FBI employees was very interesting, and that there likely seems there will be another investigation into that. Since day One people have been complaining, on both sides of the political spectrum, about leaks coming out of the FBI, DoJ and DoS.

Edited June 16, 2018 by DieChecker

[skliss]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Honestly no idea what you're even trying to get at. 

Oh please.....the continuous, false premise promoted by media and the left that GW Bush is so dumb he can't walk and chew gum at the same time...you fed into it and pushed the same narrative...to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by skliss
Fixed auto correct

[skliss]

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Then feel free to bring your finest evidence to show that the President knew, beyond reasonable doubt, that Clinton was using a private email server before the news broke.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.....

[Setton]

11 minutes ago, skliss said:

Oh please.....the continuous, false premise promoted by media and the left that GW Bush is so dumb he can't walk and chew gum at the same time...you fed into it and pushed the same narrative...to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. 

I mean, unless I somehow had a job as his body double and said all the stupid things he is on film saying, I don't think you've got much of a case there. As I said, the man may be highly educated. He may even be very intelligent. He is clearly not, however, articulate. 

Tell me any of these are the words of an articulate speaker:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq" 

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream" 

"There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don't want you to let me down again'" 

 

No spin here remember, these are words he literally said exactly as quoted. 

[Paranormal Panther]

On 6/15/2018 at 2:26 PM, CrimsonKing said:

I was just amazed with the way racism is slung around so easily at how the good Reverend was just forgiven and forgotten about so easily...Even moreso amazed at how people let Obama slide on it after such high praise for the guy!...guess Barry just put his fingers in his ears for the really bad parts 

Trump says gang members are animals = racist

Obama's close "spititual advisor" spews vile not to be repeated hate speeches on the regular = Barry didn't know any better 

Obama took a photograph with Farrakhan. The BCC met with Farrakhan. Ellison defended and supported the NOI. Yeah, there are no double standards.

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.....

Not my claim.

[ExpandMyMind]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I remember reading more about this when talk of Impeaching Trump started...

Basically Clinton was never fully impeached. Because the Senate voted to dismiss the charges. The House voted to impeach, which i don't think is exactly the same thing.

From what I've read, Democrats argued that the crimes and misdemeanors definition wouldn't apply because the nature of his lies were purely personal and lying under oath was his only crime.

I personally disagree. If any politician lies under oath I think they should be forced out. Oaths mean too little to people these days and leaders especially should be held accountable for breaking them.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd not say the IG report "Backfired". I'd say that it clearly illuminates a number of scumbags, but fall short of saying that there is evidence they did anything wrong. Due to lack of direct evidence.

I did find it funny when one Pudit was saying that it was probably Strzok's fault that Hillary lost. He seemingly tried to bury the Weiner laptop story till after the election, and then when the NY justice department pressed him on what he had done with the case, he was forced into the open and they had to contact Congress with an update on the Clinton Email invesigation. And then that possibly led directly to Hillary getting smeared and possibly loosing. "Hill"larious... That a staunch supporter actually under cut her chances out of a desire to cover up.

Also the comment of the finding of a "culture" of leaking to the Media by FBI employees was very interesting, and that there likely seems there will be another investigation into that. Since day One people have been complaining, on both sides of the political spectrum, about leaks coming out of the FBI, DoJ and DoS.

The 'backfired' was directed at Republicans and Trump, not the probe itself. Not enough room here for the full headline.

'The much-hyped IG report about the Clinton email investigation backfires on Trump'

The probe itself was quite successful. Though no outright crimes, it had quite a few important revelations.

But for Republicans it was an absolute failure. They thought Comey helped Hillary when his actions actually helped Trump by harming Hillary. They thought it would end the Mueller probe, while it affects the SC in no way at all. They thought it would end up with Hillary indicted and eventually locked up. Some people even thought it would see the same happen to Obama. Obviously this did not happen. They thought that the agent 'lovebirds' would be exposed as having been actively involved in all sorts of obstruction related stuff. They did not alter anything and are only, as far as the evidence shows, guilty of having a political opinion.

It was an absolute failure in that it debunked multiple right wing conspiracy theories. So, I'd have to stick with my opinion that it backfired. Monumentally.

[Farmer77]

Just facepalm 

Nunes: "Good" FBI Agents Leaked Clinton Info to Me

 

Quote

on Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes explained that in late September 2016, “good FBI agents” came to him and told him they’d found the Weiner laptop with Huma Abedin’s emails with Secretary Clinton.

So we can look forward to him outing them so Trump can insult them on twitter right? 

[skliss]

18 hours ago, Setton said:

I mean, unless I somehow had a job as his body double and said all the stupid things he is on film saying, I don't think you've got much of a case there. As I said, the man may be highly educated. He may even be very intelligent. He is clearly not, however, articulate. 

Tell me any of these are the words of an articulate speaker:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq" 

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream" 

"There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don't want you to let me down again'" 

 

No spin here remember, these are words he literally said exactly as quoted. 

Yes....someone who speaks publicly as much as any politician who makes it all the way to POTUS will have instances of misspeaking or scrambling words...who wouldn't with all those speeches? I could take any politician and pull out instances of the same type behaviour....the difference is the deliberate spin and insistence by msm that it he lacks intelligence. You are just spinning because I pointed out you were riding high on that particular bandwagon....along with others who forget his credentials.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

Yes....someone who speaks publicly as much as any politician who makes it all the way to POTUS will have instances of misspeaking or scrambling words...who wouldn't with all those speeches? I could take any politician and pull out instances of the same type behaviour....the difference is the deliberate spin and insistence by msm that it he lacks intelligence. You are just spinning because I pointed out you were riding high on that particular bandwagon....along with others who forget his credentials.

Please do then. Prove your point with something other than your opinion. 

[CrimsonKing]

45 minutes ago, Setton said:

Please do then. Prove your point with something other than your opinion. 

I'm going to play the Dubya Bush card for 10 points and a free spin Setton...  

[skliss]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Please do then. Prove your point with something other than your opinion. 

Really don't have the time or interest...speech flubs are all over the internet, Obama once said there are 57 states, if you are interested, try YouTube. I now know you are one of "those" who will string a discussion along, spinning it further and further from it's core to try and obscure the initial fact that you either were wrong about the topic or it made you look a way you don't like. 

[CrimsonKing]

3 hours ago, skliss said:

Yes....someone who speaks publicly as much as any politician who makes it all the way to POTUS will have instances of misspeaking or scrambling words...who wouldn't with all those speeches? I could take any politician and pull out instances of the same type behaviour....the difference is the deliberate spin and insistence by msm that it he lacks intelligence. You are just spinning because I pointed out you were riding high on that particular bandwagon....along with others who forget his credentials.

I guess you coulda used crying Chuck on the Singapore summit being "All cattle,no hat"...   

[.ZZ.]

1 minute ago, CrimsonKing said:

I guess you coulda used crying Chuck on the Singapore summit being "All cattle,no hat"...   

That's what happens when an idiot tries to make a Texas joke.