So Comey lied when he said the Clinton e-mails on Weiner’s computer were examined

[Bormio]

... before the election.  It is now reported that most never were examined, and when classified info was found, it was not reported.  Instead Comey said “All clear”.  But the FBI is on the up and up - yeah right.  #seetheshockedlookonmyface

[HSFBfan]

Of course he lied 

[Rufus69]

39 minutes ago, Bormio said:

... before the election.  It is now reported that most never were examined, and when classified info was found, it was not reported.  Instead Comey said “All clear”.  But the FBI is on the up and up - yeah right.  #seetheshockedlookonmyface

Is there something wrong with lying?

Don't tell Trumpy The Clown.....LOL.

He's the biggest liar we got !!!!!

 

 

Rufus>>

[Bormio]

This is not about Clinton.  The only allegation I have seen that I thought put Trump in possible trouble was Comey saying Trump tried to get him go easy on Flynn.  But it is only the word of Comey and his diaries.  But Comey is a liar - and not just after the fact, but as events unfold.  His word and his diaries are worthless.

[stanscript]

[Bormio]

7 minutes ago, stanscript said:

Which apparently was a lie - they did not review them all.

[stanscript]

nfo ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^

Look, they didn't have to review them all just the ones that pertained to Hillary Clinton.  By the way that they were classified on the computer they could have been duplicates already seen and dismissed without looking at them again.  Maybe they only had to actually read a few thousand new ones or so.

Pretty straightforward.  The FBI investigative team worked round the clock to review all communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State and didn't change their previous conclusion.  Comey hasn't changed his story.  Now, trumpie changes his story 3 times in the same day.

Where did you get your original claim from? Alex Jones? Sean Hannity,  Roger Stone?   How about the NATIONAL ENQUIRER?

You guys are just too much.

 

[Bormio]

9 minutes ago, stanscript said:

nfo ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^

Look, they didn't have to review them all just the ones that pertained to Hillary Clinton.  By the way that they were classified on the computer they could have been duplicates already seen and dismissed without looking at them again.  Maybe they only had to actually read a few thousand new ones or so.

Pretty straightforward.  The FBI investigative team worked round the clock to review all communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State and didn't change their previous conclusion.  Comey hasn't changed his story.  Now, trumpie changes his story 3 times in the same day.

Where did you get your original claim from? Alex Jones? Sean Hannity,  Roger Stone?   How about the NATIONAL ENQUIRER?

You guys are just too much.

 

From investigative reporter for RealClear Investigations - part of the RealClear Politics site - hardly rabid partisans.  And it was reported classified information was found and not made known before the election.  And only a small # of the Clinton e-mails were examined - not all as Comey said.

[stanscript]

No not rabid partisans, but RCP does lean right.

You didn't address my explanation which has been reported before.   It has been reported on TV that the reason they got thru the large number of emails was that they used sophisticated software to find the emails that they hadn't seen before and just needed to look at the "new" ones.  Apparently most of the previous emails and the "newer" emails left a signature of sorts.  Perhaps it was exact time,  word count, character count or matching key words or sentences that told the investigators that the emails had been viewed before and judged innocuous.  Some person not realizing this technique could surmiss that the FBI had to go thru all 650,000, which would be extremely hard to do in a short time frame.  Do you actually think that the FBI wouldn't expect some skeptics to doubt going thru all 650,000 one by one?  Come on, man they aren't stupid like you think they are.

Got a link, and I'll look at how well resourced it is..

 

[HawgGoneIt]

Just grabbin' at straws as the hounds close in is what this is. 

Generally should have been discounted at a glance. 

[dan in daytona]

6 hours ago, Bormio said:

... before the election.  It is now reported that most never were examined, and when classified info was found, it was not reported.  Instead Comey said “All clear”.  But the FBI is on the up and up - yeah right.  #seetheshockedlookonmyface

Funny how the left never trusted the FBI or other Intelligence Services : Unions, McCarthy Red scare, J Edgar bugging MLK, Panthers, NAACP, Hippies, Vietnam protesters, Freedom fighters in Africa, Central America, military coups around the world, etc, etc.... About time you patriotic Wingnuts wised up. Though 70 years late, Welcome to my world Comrade Bormio......power to the people    

[RedZone]

Poor, bormio. 😂

[HawgGoneIt]

5 hours ago, dan in daytona said:

Funny how the left never trusted the FBI or other Intelligence Services : Unions, McCarthy Red scare, J Edgar bugging MLK, Panthers, NAACP, Hippies, Vietnam protesters, Freedom fighters in Africa, Central America, military coups around the world, etc, etc.... About time you patriotic Wingnuts wised up. Though 70 years late, Welcome to my world Comrade Bormio......power to the people    

Well, this time, it's the right being investigated. 

How you know the FBI is pretty neutral is that neither side trusts them. 

Both sided have always cited political bias for years. 

 

Discounted with a glance. 

 

 

[dan in daytona]

7 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

How you know the FBI is pretty neutral is that neither side trusts them. 

 

 

 

Bingo!

[Troll]

7 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well, this time, it's the right being investigated. 

How you know the FBI is pretty neutral is that neither side trusts them. 

Both sided have always cited political bias for years. 

 

Discounted with a glance. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, dan in daytona said:

Bingo!

exactly...and exactly...I agree with this premise..

So why do you guys now all 'trust em' with this whole witchhunt er unbiased (cough cough) investigation ??…

So far in this thread we've only got 'past claims of being biased' (from both sides no less) as proof of being unbiased......nice...

got anything else to second the notion?

 

[Bormio]

11 minutes ago, Troll said:

 

exactly...and exactly...I agree with this premise..

So why do you guys now all 'trust em' with this whole witchhunt er unbiased (cough cough) investigation ??…

So far in this thread we've only got 'past claims of being biased' (from both sides no less) as proof of being unbiased......nice...

got anything else to second the notion?

 

Because justice does not matter.  Whether Trump did anything or not does not matter.  They just want a pound of flesh.

[HawgGoneIt]

13 minutes ago, Troll said:

 

exactly...and exactly...I agree with this premise..

So why do you guys now all 'trust em' with this whole witchhunt er unbiased (cough cough) investigation ??…

So far in this thread we've only got 'past claims of being biased' (from both sides no less) as proof of being unbiased......nice...

got anything else to second the notion?

 

Well of course we trust them while they're going after the bad man. 

We don't trust them when they're going after the good guys. 

Duh! 

 

🤣

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, Bormio said:

Because justice does not matter.  Whether Trump did anything or not does not matter.  They just want a pound of flesh.

Of course! 

Same with the "lock her up" chanting crowd right?

Or is that somehow different? 

[Troll]

11 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well of course we trust them while they're going after the bad man. 

We don't trust them when they're going after the good guys. 

Duh! 

 

🤣

oh..... of this we ALL.....  agreeeeee...

we have a winner!

[15yds4gibberish]

13 hours ago, dan in daytona said:

Funny how the left never trusted the FBI or other Intelligence Services : Unions, McCarthy Red scare, J Edgar bugging MLK, Panthers, NAACP, Hippies, Vietnam protesters, Freedom fighters in Africa, Central America, military coups around the world, etc, etc.... About time you patriotic Wingnuts wised up. Though 70 years late, Welcome to my world Comrade Bormio......power to the people    

@dan in daytona,

We do indeed live in a time of strange bedfellows – For example I can’t believe, when discussing trade, how often members of Team Trump sound like the Seattle WTO protesters they once mocked…

Your post touches on a question that has been raised a few times about why the left suddenly seems to have embraced the FBI.  I’d suggest it’s a lot more complicated and nuanced than that – more of a wary embrace in favor of a larger ideal about the rule of law. 

We currently have a President that announces at every turn that he thinks the AG’s job is to protect him from the Russia probe and that he wants law enforcement to focus on Clinton and other political enemies.  The President’s attitude toward Federal Law enforcement is not just corrupt, it is openly and flamboyantly corrupt. Trump wants the FBI and Justice Department to be expressions of his power and interests.   

The notion of law enforcement as professional, not political, began developing as an aspiration and an ethos even while in practice the FBI was the personal fiefdom of J. Edgar Hoover. The modern norms of apolitical conduct and independence on investigative matters, which crystallized in the reforms that followed Watergate and the civil-rights era abuses, reflect not merely the shock of those abuses but decades of learned experience about law enforcement professionalism and how to do investigations well under a rule of law system.

The question Trump is posing is whether we want to go back to a more primitive vision of the relationship between the president and the civilians with the power to lock people up.

[Troll]

16 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

@dan in daytona

We do indeed live in a time of strange bedfellows – For example I can’t believe, when discussing trade, how often members of Team Trump sound like the Seattle WTO protesters they once mocked…

Your post touches on a question that has been raised a few times about why the left suddenly seems to have embraced the FBI.  I’d suggest it’s a lot more complicated and nuanced than that – more of a wary embrace in favor of a larger ideal about the rule of law. 

We currently have a President that announces at every turn that he thinks the AG’s job is to protect him from the Russia probe and that he wants law enforcement to focus on Clinton and other political enemies.  The President’s attitude toward Federal Law enforcement is not just corrupt, it is openly and flamboyantly corrupt. Trump wants the FBI and Justice Department to be expressions of his power and interests.   

The notion of law enforcement as professional, not political, began developing as an aspiration and an ethos even while in practice the FBI was the personal fiefdom of J. Edgar Hoover. The modern norms of apolitical conduct and independence on investigative matters, which crystallized in the reforms that followed Watergate and the civil-rights era abuses, reflect not merely the shock of those abuses but decades of learned experience about law enforcement professionalism and how to do investigations well under a rule of law system.

The question Trump is posing is whether we want to go back to a more primitive vision of the relationship between the president and the civilians with the power to lock people up.

Great stuff gibberish...

Makes one stop and think …

the pretexts are all accurate, and the premises make some good points...

As it relates to Trump tho, it does seem more complex...

How do you figure his vision is one that they (the acronyms) should work for him (as expressed to the masses) when all he has done is (publicly) fight with them tooth and nail, pointing to this political bastardization since day 1?  Wouldn't everything he is doing now make it harder for him to about face and run with it?  Just sounds biased,  like your pointing to the rookie that just got in, and blaming him for the system...

Certainly I don't think he would refrain from much if they (the acronyms) were entirely on his side, but how in the world can you assume or make these premises (that he promotes or pushes this agenda) based off this assumption...

In other words, what possible evidence (if any) can you put forth to even suggest that your highlighted question is even remotely a valid one???   

 

[15yds4gibberish]

9 minutes ago, Troll said:

 

In other words, what possible evidence (if any) can you put forth to even suggest that your highlighted question is even remotely a valid one???   

 

Pretty regularly, our President of the United States, makes investigative demands of the Justice Department for entirely self-interested and political reasons. This is the stuff of banana republics.

Here is an example just from the last 24 hours (there are plenty of other far more extreme and direct examples of this, I merely chose this one because of its currency).  These are so regular that I'm willing to make a gentleman's bet that we will have another example this weekend, if there hasn't been another one already this morning.

 

Aside from the crappy leadership style of holding his performance evaluation in public, I get that some of the junior Scalia's on this board are going to argue he has the executive power to do this -- But this was the subject of my earlier post, and  we all know these statements are  designed to discredit and derail an investigation into himself.  The consequence is an undermining of the rule of law.   We have a choice to make.

Please note, I will be out much of the day today and likely won't have time to respond to posts, but I'll eventually make it back here (and decide then if I wish to respond)  Ahh what the heck, before I go, here's a particularly egregious example based on no underlying evidence.

 

This is not normal.  Nor should it be.

 

[Troll]

10 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Pretty regularly, our President of the United States, makes investigative demands of the Justice Department for entirely self-interested and political reasons. This is the stuff of banana republics.

Here is an example just from the last 24 hours (there are plenty of other far more extreme and direct examples of this, I merely chose this one because of its currency).  These are so regular that I'm willing to make a gentleman's bet that we will have another example this weekend, if there hasn't been another one already this morning.

 

Aside from the crappy leadership style of holding his performance evaluation in public, I get that some of the junior Scalia's on this board are going to argue he has the executive power to do this -- But this was the subject of my earlier post, and  we all know these statements are  designed to discredit and derail an investigation into himself.  The consequence is an undermining of the rule of law.   We have a choice to make.

Please note, I will be out much of the day today and likely won't have time to respond to posts, but I'll eventually make it back here (and decide then if I wish to respond)  Ahh what the heck, before I go, here's a particularly egregious example based on no underlying evidence.

 

This is not normal.  Nor should it be.

 

Oh OK, much clear picture of where you are coming from now...

So requesting investigations of the 'other side' is off limits....as you think these would somehow take away from the investigation at hand which you prefer...

 

As for holding court in public, this is also another very interesting notion...

Do you prefer the court of public opinion to be played out in the controlled media?  Less transparency is better because you are averse to the management or style you see?  

There's a lot of things that are 'not normal', but normal many times does not = right or good...

The question you really pose is whether this new 'not normal' is better than the old 'not normal'.....and stated your preference...

BTW: Are not investigations what are supposed to be used to obtain said evidence???  Maybe if Mr T. hired a consulting firm to build dossiers ahead of time as pretext it would be better suited to the 'management style' which you consider normal and thus more agreeable...

#LET THEM INVESTIGATE ALL SIDES....

Nothing wrong with T-boy calling for equal scrutiny on both sides....no matter how bad he presents it, or how bad you spin it. 

 

[Bormio]

The Washington establishment is engaged in a coup - these are not normal times.  If they win at the ballot box, fine.  But not like this.

[Bormio]

And now the CNN story that Cohen told Congress that Trump knew about the Tower meeting at the time turns out to be 100% wrong.  In fact Cohen told Congress the opposite.  And Lanny Davis (Cohen’s lawyer) confirmed the story to CNN when it was reported even though he did not know.  Lies stacked on top of lies.  And we are supposed to respect this “investigation“?