Reply With Quote
Not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. The DOJ was providing information and cover to Clinton during the investigation. What these FBI agents are doing now is truly patriotic.
There is a big difference between law enforcement being guided by political pressure and expediency (war on drugs, crack vs. coke sentences, hate crimes, cakes for gays, etc.) than the Justice department intentionally not pursuing actual crime for political reasons.
Not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. The DOJ was providing information and cover to Clinton during the investigation. What these FBI agents are doing now is truly patriotic.
where is the crime?
TSA is a fan girl drooling over a teen fanzine.
boutons with a rare hit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...57681901096960
WikiLeaks–Verified account @wikileaks
Stay tune for our FBI-DoJ #PodestaEmail special circa 4pm EST.
Doesn't matter what I think. It's not a requirement.
“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”
Get a load of who Melania Trump is plagiarizing now!
(((Yair Rosenberg)))
✔@Yair_Rosenberg
Melania just plagiarized Trump's second wife Marla Maples. Here's the only Google results for "if you could dream it, you could become it":
It's not just the one line, either. A whole section about family and parents and opportunity.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/03/1590729/-Get-a-load-of-who-Melania-Trump-is-plagiarizing-now?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_camp aign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29
btw, Marla's lookin damn good. search "marla maples 2015"
You aren't even correcting the record in the correct thread shill. No payment from David Brock for CTR shilling incorrect threads.
And they're out.
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 28 - DoJ/FBI/Huma special
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?special&q=&mfrom=&mto=& le=&no le=&date_from= &date_to=&nofrom=¬o=&count=50&sort=6#searchresu lt
will post up ones of interest after the Autists dig through
Donald Trump’s FBI: James Comey’s department is filled with pro-Trump, anti-Hillary Clinton partisans
The Bureau seems to be filled with partisan hacks -bent on investigating Hillary Clinton
Under FBI Director James Comey, whose ethically challenged letter Friday has put wind in Donald Trump’s sails, the Bureau has engaged in a partisan witch huntagainst Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton — and it’s all because there’s a pro-Trump bias.
As The Guardian reported on Thursday, many sources within the FBI admitted to the newspaper that many agents were outraged that Comey decided not to recommend an indictment against Clinton in July.
“The FBI is Trumpland,” one agent admitted to the site, with another describing how Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swathe of FBI personnel” and “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
While some of The Guardian’s sources disagreed that the FBI is overwhelmingly pro-Trump, all of them stated that the at ude toward Clinton is extremely negative.
“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,”
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/03/dona...ton-partisans/
so the FBI macho-man goons prefer incompetent macho-man Trash to Crooked Hillary.
As if Hillary is the only crooked, corrupted politician.
Trash is vastly more crooked, corrupt in many more ways than Hillary, but she's fat, old, un-hot woman.
James Comey’s Actions Place Him in the Worst Traditions of J. Edgar Hoover
From the beginning of James B. Comey’s 10-year term as FBI Director, when he was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013, he has repeatedly condemned the practices of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Speaking of Hoover’s order to wiretap the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and use the tapes to drive the civil rights leader to commit suicide, Comey said in a Georgetown University speech last year that he keeps these atrocities of his late predecessor in mind “to ensure that we remember our mistakes and that we learn from them.”
The director, however, seems to have not learned from other grievous mistakes made by Hoover. The actions Comey took last week place him firmly in one of Hoover’s worst traditions: using the enormous power of the bureau, whether or not intentionally, to affect the outcome of a presidential election.
Intervention in elections was second nature to
Hoover, simply a part of his job. It was perhaps a logical extension of some of his other favorite activities: spying on thousands of Americans because of their political beliefs and plotting dirty tricks and even crimes to destroy the lives of people he perceived as enemies of either the political system or of American values as he defined them.
He kept massive files on the personal lives of members of congress and other people, including educators, journalists and activists in the civil rights and antiwar movements.
At a moment’s notice, he would dip into these secret files and select ones he thought could be used to defeat a candidate. Or, if he didn’t have a file on a new candidate, agents and informers would be dispatched to develop such files.
Unlike Comey’s recent very public foray into possible election distortion, Hoover did it all secretly. Americans had no idea that the widely admired
FBI director had secretly long assumed he could be a law unto himself.
The public and Congress learned about Hoover’s crimes not as a result of congressional oversight, as there was no oversight of the bureau during his years as director. They learned about it as the result of
eight people burglarizing the Media, PA, office, in March 1971. The files they stole from that office and made public by giving them to journalists—including to me, a Washington Post reporter at the time — revealed Hoover’s massive spying operations, including COINTELPRO, perhaps his most vicious operations, and eventually led to congressional investigations of all intelligence agencies.
Those investigations and subsequent research by scholars and journalists of FBI files, which became accessible to the public for the first time as a result of the strengthening of the federal Freedom of Information Act in 1974, led to the discovery of Hoover’s secret FBI, including his plots to influence presidential elections.
On President Johnson’s behalf in 1964, Hoover arranged for a high FBI official to search for derogatory information about fifteen members of the staff of Senator Barry Goldwater, Johnson’s opponent in that year’s election.
In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower appeared to be uninvolved in seeking FBI services against his opponent, Senator Adlai Stevenson, but members of Eisenhower’s staff asked for FBI help. Information was provided for a whispering campaign that claimed Stevenson’s staff was made up of “pinks, punks and pansies.”
An agent involved in the effort later claimed that “a lot of us were absolutely appalled by” the effort to imply that Stevenson was gay.
But, said the agent, “Mr. Hoover was determined to elect Nixon (the Republican vice presidential candidate) and Ike, and when he made up his mind to do something there was no changing it.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/ja...-edgar-hoover/
Can you confirm axl rose as TSA tbh?
LE jumping into the political fray, running candidates down by discussing their cases in the paper -- however patriotic the motive -- is bad politics, a bad idea, and ultimately undermines confidence in LE as such.
It could undermine the case against HRC in court, if there is one.
DOJ is to blame for LE/FBI resorting to these tactics. Fight fire with fire.
If Trump was the target you'd be singing a different tune, but I'd still be saying the same thing.
What did you say about the DOJ's actions in all of this, I must have missed it.
What actions are you referring to?
As I recall, the DOJ punted to the FBI to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. You didn't like the result, so you call them both corrupt.
Let the investigation run its course. If the FBI makes a criminal referral, HRC has to step down easy as that -- supposing the FBI hasn't already shot itself in the foot.
Oops.
regardless, don't you have your own thoughts on the matter?
Is financial disclosure a good thing for voters to know before they hand someone the levers of power?
Why or why not?
Seems imminently reasonable to me. There must be some reason every single candidate in the last 50 years has gone along with it even though it's not compulsory.
The FBI said the facts didn't support a criminal referral. One might infer the reasons for non-referral were political, but the case for that is purely speculative.
At any rate, whichever way the DOJ came down, the determination would have been political. You just don't like the result, so you cry foul.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
