Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3849837 times)

aygart · « **Reply #18400 on:** February 13, 2018, 02:28:16 PM »

Quote from: shapsam on February 13, 2018, 02:23:08 PM

https://twitter.com/YossiGestetner/status/963483482545631232

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/963479319225032705

gingyguy · « **Reply #18401 on:** February 13, 2018, 02:32:50 PM »

while this guy rob porter is clearly as vile as they come at what stage does this stop making sense making a huge landfill out of a pile of dung?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #18402 on:** February 13, 2018, 05:28:12 PM »

Quote from: gingyguy on February 13, 2018, 02:32:50 PM

while this guy rob porter is clearly as vile as they come at what stage does this stop making sense making a huge landfill out of a pile of dung?

If shows the mentality of our leaders in the WH. This should concern and decent human being.

aygart · « **Reply #18403 on:** February 13, 2018, 05:28:26 PM »

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.

What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.

aygart · « **Reply #18404 on:** February 13, 2018, 05:40:17 PM »

Dear Ambassador Rice:

......
It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed “by the book,” substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed “by the book.”
.........

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Lee Holmes of Chairman Graham’s staff at (202) 224-5972 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley Lindsey O. Graham
Chairman Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Committee on the Judiciary

-------------------------------------
Keep in mind that this is an email she sent to an address she would be losing access to in just a few hours. The sole purpose of her writing the email was so it should be seen by anyone investigating from the next administration. The only thing the email contains is a statement purportedly from 2 weeks prior that they should make sure to do everything by the books. Sounds like someone knew that it wasn't by the books/

skyguy918 · « **Reply #18405 on:** February 13, 2018, 05:58:46 PM »

Quote from: aygart on February 13, 2018, 05:40:17 PM

Keep in mind that this is an email she sent to an address she would be losing access to in just a few hours. The sole purpose of her writing the email was so it should be seen by anyone investigating from the next administration. The only thing the email contains is a statement purportedly from 2 weeks prior that they should make sure to do everything by the books. Sounds like someone knew that it wasn't by the books.

That's quite a stretch. Is that what they're trying to take out of her email? Maybe more importantly though, it's irrelevant.

If you find evidence of misconduct in the investigation, this is irrelevant because you have real proof. If you don't find evidence, this is still irrelevant because it doesn't prove anything on its own. All it does is help keep people who have already made up their mind on this topic hyped about what might be uncovered.

aygart · « **Reply #18406 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:09:30 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on February 13, 2018, 05:58:46 PM

That's quite a stretch. Is that what they're trying to take out of her email? Maybe more importantly though, it's irrelevant.

If you find evidence of misconduct in the investigation, this is irrelevant because you have real proof. If you don't find evidence, this is still irrelevant because it doesn't prove anything on its own. All it does is help keep people who have already made up their mind on this topic hyped about what might be uncovered.

What do you take out of her email to an address closing in a few hours?

skyguy918 · « **Reply #18407 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:27:56 PM »

Quote from: aygart on February 13, 2018, 06:09:30 PM

What do you take out of her email to an address closing in a few hours?

I don't take anything out of it. The case that she did it to fabricate support for Obama doesn't make much sense either. What kind of evidence would that be, given the circumstances? It's weird, but it doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.

What I take the most issue with is your last sentence. Even if she intended to sneak in a record that would support the administration's integrity regarding the investigation, her actions would make just as much sense if you assume what she documented was accurate as it does if you assume that it wasn't.

gingyguy · « **Reply #18408 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:31:14 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on February 13, 2018, 06:27:56 PM

I don't take anything out of it. The case that she did it to fabricate support for Obama doesn't make much sense either. What kind of evidence would that be, given the circumstances? It's weird, but it doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.

What I take the most issue with is your last sentence. Even if she intended to sneak in a record that would support the administration's integrity regarding the investigation, her actions would make just as much sense if you assume what she documented was accurate as it does if you assume that it wasn't.

evidence its not. worth an investigation to find out motives? i think so

skyguy918 · « **Reply #18409 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:36:00 PM »

Quote from: gingyguy on February 13, 2018, 06:31:14 PM

evidence its not. worth an investigation to find out motives? i think so

Go ahead. What's gonna happen is she'll say that she did it to leave a record, and that it happened as she documented.

ETA: which could have been the case regardless of whether they truly knew the investigation was or wasn't above board.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #18410 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:39:16 PM »

There is this narrative that everyone at the FBI leadership was out to get Trump. The facts show the FBI actions helped Trump win the election. Who wants to try and spin this?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #18411 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:47:33 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on February 12, 2018, 07:01:27 PM

WH blames FBI and Intelligence Agencies for 30-40 WH employees (including I don't remember Kushner) still not having security clearance. Remember the WH is not disparaging the rank and file.

FBI fires back and shows the WH/Sanders lied about the timeline and who is to blamed. So they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar so now they are blaming the internal office. Can anyone ever believe anything they say?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-now-says-internal-office-to-blame-on-porter/ar-BBJ6bUN?li=BBnb7Kz

aygart · « **Reply #18412 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:49:41 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on February 13, 2018, 06:27:56 PM

I don't take anything out of it. The case that she did it to fabricate support for Obama doesn't make much sense either. What kind of evidence would that be, given the circumstances? It's weird, but it doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.

What I take the most issue with is your last sentence. Even if she intended to sneak in a record that would support the administration's integrity regarding the investigation, her actions would make just as much sense if you assume what she documented was accurate as it does if you assume that it wasn't.

The only purpose would be to separate Obama and herself from things done against the book by being exculpatory evidence. I guess it could have been out of fear that even if done according to the book it would look bad or that their instruction weren't followed, but it raises many questions when someone plants something like this for the sole purpose of it being there for investigators to see. We definitely don't have answers about this but it is a definite lead.

skyguy918 · « **Reply #18413 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:08:33 PM »

Quote from: aygart on February 13, 2018, 06:49:41 PM

The only purpose would be to separate Obama and herself from things done against the book by being exculpatory evidence. I guess it could have been out of fear that even if done according to the book it would look bad or that their instruction weren't followed, but it raises many questions when someone plants something like this for the sole purpose of it being there for investigators to see. We definitely don't have answers about this but it is a definite lead.

'I guess'? How is that theory any less valid than the one you're advancing, unless you've made up your mind without this email incident?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #18414 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:37:19 PM »

The six most senior Intelligence heads says Russia is targeting the 2018 election just as they did the last one. When are the gullibles going to get their heads out of the sand? @ilherman

aygart · « **Reply #18415 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:56:27 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on February 13, 2018, 07:08:33 PM

'I guess'? How is that theory any less valid than the one you're advancing, unless you've made up your mind without this email incident?

The planting of exculpatory is most likely when there is something to prove innocence from.

aygart · « **Reply #18416 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:57:12 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on February 13, 2018, 07:37:19 PM

The six most senior Intelligence heads says Russia is targeting the 2018 election just as they did the last one. When are the gullibles going to get their heads out of the sand? @ilherman

Probably when they see politicians taking it seriously enough to not be partisan about it.

avromie7 · « **Reply #18417 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:28:19 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on February 13, 2018, 06:39:16 PM

The facts show the FBI actions helped Trump win the election.

Source? Details?

aygart · « **Reply #18418 on:** February 13, 2018, 08:37:18 PM »

Quote from: avromie7 on February 13, 2018, 08:28:19 PM

Source? Details?

The announcement about the investigation a week before the election while at the same time the one about trump was kept quiet.

avromie7 · « **Reply #18419 on:** February 13, 2018, 09:09:54 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on February 13, 2018, 06:39:16 PM

There is this narrative that everyone at the FBI leadership was out to get Trump. The facts show the FBI actions helped Trump win the election. Who wants to try and spin this?

Just because that's what happened, doesn't mean that's the way it was intended

Topic Wiki

Poll

Who are you voting for?

Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3849837 times)