snafu Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 56 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: IG found Comey was interested in protecting Clinton's legitimacy: I called that...(not too difficult). Comey was so sure that Clinton was going to win that he didn't see his disclosure as a threat to an inevitable outcome. I think the Democrats knew that her poll numbers were probably greatly inflated by late October but Comey didn't. That's why the backlash from the top was so vitriolic against Comey. Yes, he defied FBI policy with the timing, but he got fooled by the constant drumbeat of the Dem party and the press propping their bad, empty candidate up. I think he did the disclosure (in addition to this quote, above) because he wasn't entirely a willing player in the first decision (in July, 2016) to exonerate Clinton in the first place. The October disclosure made Comey feel better about himself -- and he thought that no harm would come of it.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 This has gotta be like Christmas morning for Greggy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: This has gotta be like Christmas morning for Greggy He got an erector set. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: This has gotta be like Christmas morning for Greggy Imagine if Trump releases the un-redacted version? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: OH !@#$ING REALLY? Corruption surrounding the Clinton Foundation? Whod'a thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Not a single mention of Platte River. That's gotta be in the classified section - that's a MAJOR piece of the puzzle, that it's not included is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 hour ago, GG said: His spin is that he sought the truth. The actions showed that he didn't want to get to the truth because it would put him in the cross hairs of powerful people. He essentially Ortoned a 4th down run. Now there's a NY Post-worthy headline That is dam funny! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Wray's press conference moved to 5:30pm EST. More on McCabe... he's toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 23 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Hm. Fancy that. DEFINITELY not co-conspirators. We should protect their rights at all costs! Listen, I know it's difficult for you to understand, but our Constitution has strict prohibitions against the creation of ex-post-facto laws. It's not even in an Amendment. It's in the body of the original document. You can try people for crimes they have committed, but you cannot try them for things that were not criminal when they did them. Even if you really don't like those things. Even if they are committed by Democrats. Now, if any journalists broke actual laws, not violated ethical standards, but broke laws you can prosecute them. If they did not, you can write new laws which criminalize their behavior, assuming those laws themselves don't violate the Constitution; and you can use those new laws to prosecute future crimes should they occur. What you absolutely cannot do is invent law, wholesale out of cloth, to prosecute people for crimes that do not exist. That is tyranny, and I will not stand by and watch one form of tyranny replace another, nor will I listen to idiots advocate for such action without shaming them for it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Priestap has been talking for a long, long time (as discussed earlier): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Listen, I know it's difficult for you to understand, but our Constitution has strict prohibitions against the creation of ex-post-facto laws. It's not even in an Amendment. It's in the body of the original document. You can try people for crimes they have committed, but you cannot try them for things that were not criminal when they did them. Even if you really don't like those things. Even if they are committed by Democrats. Now, if any journalists broke actual laws, not violated ethical standards, but broke laws you can prosecute them. If they did not, you can write new laws which criminalize their behavior, assuming those laws themselves don't violate the Constitution; and you can use those new laws to prosecute future crimes should they occur. What you absolutely cannot do is invent law, wholesale out of cloth, to prosecute people for crimes that do not exist. That is tyranny, and I will not stand by and watch one form of tyranny replace another, nor will I listen to idiots advocate for such action without shaming them for it. Took bribes. It's there in black and white. That entire "news organization" needs to be torn down to the foundations to root out anyone who participated. If the bad publicity of such an operation happens to put them out of business, so be it. Edited June 14, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: Took bribes. It's there in black and white. That entire "news organization" needs to be torn down to the foundations to root out anyone who participated. Took handouts is not the same as received handouts. And even so, that's not necessarily criminal action. You're doing exactly the same thing Robert Mueller is doing, which is a gross miscarriage of the law. You don't assume criminality and look for reasons to prosecute, you look and the facts, and you look at the law; and you objectively contrast those two things to determine if laws were broken, and who they were broken by. You're simply on a witch hunt guided by hatred of a certain ideology, wishing to stifle it, and embracing the tools of dictatorship to do so. You're no different from those you oppose in your methods; which is shameful because it is their methods which are the most abhorrent part of this whole event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Took bribes. It's there in black and white. That entire "news organization" needs to be torn down to the foundations to root out anyone who participated. If the bad publicity of such an operation happens to put them out of business, so be it. It's clear they were willing cheerleaders. But I don't see anything that's illegal. Highly, highly unethical. But not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 So 5 for sure have been referred (that's low - which implies they are holding some for the FISA drop). All the referred agents (allegedly) worked both the MYE and Crossfire Hurricane (so that shows you where this is going). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, GG said: It's clear they were willing cheerleaders. But I don't see anything that's illegal. Highly, highly unethical. But not illegal. Yes, but the question becomes if people should lose their jobs. I work in research at a hospital and we have a strict ethics policy. I would easily lose my job if in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 ... No bias: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Took handouts is not the same as received handouts. And even so, that's not necessarily criminal action. You're doing exactly the same thing Robert Mueller is doing, which is a gross miscarriage of the law. You don't assume criminality and look for reasons to prosecute, you look and the facts, and you look at the law; and you objectively contrast those two things to determine if laws were broken, and who they were broken by. You're simply on a witch hunt guided by hatred of a certain ideology, wishing to stifle it, and embracing the tools of dictatorship to do so. You're no different from those you oppose in your methods; which is shameful because it is their methods which are the most abhorrent part of this whole event. I'm going to have to dig into anti-corruption law, but it seems to me that if a member of the federal government offers a "journalist" quid pro quo for publishing a certain story, that would rise to the level of bribery/corruption. And if so, that would be a violation of EXISTING law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Priestap has been talking for a long, long time (as discussed earlier): Bottom of the page is interesting. "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strozek's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over... ...was free from bias. No surprises why they sat on the laptop info. Edited June 14, 2018 by GaryPinC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Bottom of the page is interesting. "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strozek's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over... ...was free from bias. That's why the body is so important to read. It doesn't match (so far) with the Summary or Conclusions. It's like three different reports. Shows me that either this report was edited after Horowitz turned it over (by DOJ/RR perhaps) - or, perhaps more likely, certain conclusions are being left for the next report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts