Former AG Makes Good Case that Russian Hacking Was Not Meant to Elect Trump

[francoHFW]

And the FBI knows exactly what the confidential top secret info was, who marked it classified and when/how it was communicated. You don’t know any of that. But the guys that saw it all and investigated it deemed her innocent of criminal charges. I’ll take their word over yours... sorry

Wasn't it the FBI who changed the wording from Gross Negligence to Extremely Careless. I don't think I would take their word for it, unless I was as partisan as they were.

Wait hold up.... somebody changed the words of a draft document?! Holy shit. That’s crazy!!! SHAME!!!

Dude, Comey is the MAN he put down Grossly Negligent and Strzok (not the MAN) changed it to Extremely Careless. Now you can look like a partisan dupe if you want,
but you will be called out on it.

Really? And Comey THE MAN had no say in the wording change? Sounds like you were in the room during that meeting. Please enlighten us on how it went.

Why don't you follow the news, dude? You would be informed on this. I can't fix stupid or ignorance for you.
You really sound.....not going to say it.

That's not news that's propaganda super dupe

 

[K9Buck]

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

It seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".

What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of things

This, for one.

Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

 

[francoHFW]

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

It seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".

What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of things

This, for one.

Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

Because it was obvious to anyone except super Dupes like you that she was not trying to pull Anything duh..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Wasn't it the FBI who changed the wording from Gross Negligence to Extremely Careless. I don't think I would take their word for it, unless I was as partisan as they were.

Wait hold up.... somebody changed the words of a draft document?! Holy shit. That’s crazy!!! SHAME!!!

Dude, Comey is the MAN he put down Grossly Negligent and Strzok (not the MAN) changed it to Extremely Careless. Now you can look like a partisan dupe if you want,
but you will be called out on it.

Really? And Comey THE MAN had no say in the wording change? Sounds like you were in the room during that meeting. Please enlighten us on how it went.

Why don't you follow the news, dude? You would be informed on this. I can't fix stupid or ignorance for you.
You really sound.....not going to say it.

That's not news that's propaganda super dupe

You are a total moron.

This is all you can post.....it's pure bullshit.

 

[Slade3200]

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

It seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".

What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of things

This, for one.

Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

Sorry, I just don’t see what finding a draft statement proves. We don’t know much of anything about the investigation or what was going on in Comeys head so it’s all a bunch of assumptions at this point.

 

[K9Buck]

Because it was obvious to anyone except super Dupes like you that she was not trying to pull Anything duh..

Ok, so you are obviously a citizen that supports government officials doing whatever they like with our nation's secrets. I simply don't agree with such a concept. I guess that makes me a dupe.

 

[K9Buck]

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

It seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".

What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of things

This, for one.

Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

Sorry, I just don’t see what finding a draft statement proves. We don’t know much of anything about the investigation or what was going on in Comeys head so it’s all a bunch of assumptions at this point.

Doing so sends the signal that Comey was going to recommend NOT prosecuting Hillary, regardless of what the upcoming investigation was going to reveal. Now, if it came out that Comey wrote similar letters for every target of an FBI investigation long before the investigations were complete, then I'd think different about his intent. Hey, did Comey write such an exoneration letter for the convicted sailor?

If you were tasked with the criminal investigation of a possible crime, would you take the time to write an exoneration letter long before had you had completed the investigation? Hell, they hadn't even interviewed Hillary.

 

[Slade3200]

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

It seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".

What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of things

This, for one.

Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

Sorry, I just don’t see what finding a draft statement proves. We don’t know much of anything about the investigation or what was going on in Comeys head so it’s all a bunch of assumptions at this point.

Doing so sends the signal that Comey was going to recommend NOT prosecuting Hillary, regardless of what the upcoming investigation was going to reveal. Now, if it came out that Comey wrote similar letters for every target of an FBI investigation long before the investigations were complete, then I'd think different about his intent. Hey, did Comey write such an exoneration letter for the convicted sailor?

If you were tasked with the criminal investigation of a possible crime, would you take the time to write an exoneration letter long before had you had completed the investigation? Hell, they hadn't even interviewed Hillary.

I thought the draft said she displayed gross negligence which is a crime. So it doesn’t sound much like an exoneration letter. Regardless, we are only talking about assumptions and “signals” as you call them with little to no insight of the actual situation. Anybody outside the bubble listening in on this conversation is shaking their head.

 

[K9Buck]

I thought the draft said she displayed gross negligence which is a crime. So it doesn’t sound much like an exoneration letter.

I would agree with you, but I think we're discussing two separate documents.

 

[busybee01]

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that made some very logical arguments to support the idea that the Russian hacking and leaking was not meant to elect Trump but was meant to serve as a warning to Hillary. Mukasey argues, probably correctly, that the Russians, like most everyone else, believed that Hillary was going to win. Therefore, says Mukasey, they meddled and leaked in order to warn Hillary that they might have her e-mails, including some/all of her missing e-mails. An excerpt:

“Consider the Justice Department inspector general's report on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of an unauthorized and vulnerable email server,” Mukasey wrote. “It found that the bureau had concluded the server could well have been penetrated without detection. Recall also that some of the people hacked by GRU [Russia’s military intelligence agency] agents were aware of that server and mentioned it in messages they sent, so that the Russians too were aware of it.”

Mukasey added: “There are some 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over, on the claim that they were personal and involved such trivia as yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding. If they instead contained damaging information -- say, regarding Clinton Foundation fundraising -- the new president would have taken office in the shadow of a sword dangling from a string held by the Russians.”

Pointing to the indictment last week of 12 GRU agents, the former attorney general also suggested that Putin wanted U.S. intelligence services to discover Russian meddling in the election -- and that if he really wanted agents from Moscow to go undetected he would have used a far more capable source than the former Russian “special-forces types” that make up GRU. (Russian meddling in election meant as 'warning' to Clinton, former AG says)​

This makes a lot of sense.

The fact is that the Russians wanted Trump to win. That does not mean they were not hedging their bets. One piece of false information that was released by the Russians had the forged letterhead of a Democrat US Senator saying the fix was in for Clinton to win. That was clearly meant to suggest Clinton had cheated to win the election. I have no doubts the GRU is responsible for the hacking.

 

[busybee01]

If the Russians had hacked the server of the Tea Party, would a special counsel have been appointed? Yea, I didn't think so either.

Who appointed the special counsel?

The deputy AG that Trump appointed.

What does that tell you?

I don't believe a special counsel was needed to investigate Russian espionage activities against the DNC server. The Russians have been hacking American government servers and the servers of private organizations for many years.

My take is that Rosenstein and Sessions are both never-Trumpers and are happy to see Mueller, Strozk, etc. dig up anything they can on Trump to warrant prosecuting him or getting him impeached. I certainly don't believe that Trump conspired with Putin to do anything.

What are your thoughts?

The reason for the special counsel was Trump's big mouth. Rosenstein gave Trump plausible deniability in creating a memo justifying the firing of Comey which was bogus. Then Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

 

[Slade3200]

I thought the draft said she displayed gross negligence which is a crime. So it doesn’t sound much like an exoneration letter.

I would agree with you, but I think we're discussing two separate documents.

Perhaps. I’m at the point in this debate where I’m feeling dizzy and probably getting things confused. Time to hang it up for the night. Save the skooling for another day.

 

[K9Buck]

The fact is that the Russians wanted Trump to win.

Why do you say that is a "fact"?

 

[Slade3200]

If the Russians had hacked the server of the Tea Party, would a special counsel have been appointed? Yea, I didn't think so either.

Who appointed the special counsel?

The deputy AG that Trump appointed.

What does that tell you?

I don't believe a special counsel was needed to investigate Russian espionage activities against the DNC server. The Russians have been hacking American government servers and the servers of private organizations for many years.

My take is that Rosenstein and Sessions are both never-Trumpers and are happy to see Mueller, Strozk, etc. dig up anything they can on Trump to warrant prosecuting him or getting him impeached. I certainly don't believe that Trump conspired with Putin to do anything.

What are your thoughts?

The reason for the special counsel was Trump's big mouth. Rosenstein gave Trump plausible deniability in creating a memo justifying the firing of Comey which was bogus. Then Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

That was pretty funnny. Can you imagine that guy getting interviewed by Mueller?! They should live stream that shit!

 

[K9Buck]

If the Russians had hacked the server of the Tea Party, would a special counsel have been appointed? Yea, I didn't think so either.

Who appointed the special counsel?

The deputy AG that Trump appointed.

What does that tell you?

I don't believe a special counsel was needed to investigate Russian espionage activities against the DNC server. The Russians have been hacking American government servers and the servers of private organizations for many years.

My take is that Rosenstein and Sessions are both never-Trumpers and are happy to see Mueller, Strozk, etc. dig up anything they can on Trump to warrant prosecuting him or getting him impeached. I certainly don't believe that Trump conspired with Putin to do anything.

What are your thoughts?

The reason for the special counsel was Trump's big mouth. Rosenstein gave Trump plausible deniability in creating a memo justifying the firing of Comey which was bogus. Then Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Well, I suppose if and when the investigation concludes, we can better ascertain whether or not it was justified. I'm of the opinion that a special counsel wasn't necessary, but of course, I don't have all the facts. So, I will reserve final judgment.

 

[K9Buck]

That was pretty funnny. Can you imagine that guy getting interviewed by Mueller?! They should live stream that shit!

It will be interesting to see if Mueller attempts to interview Trump. I hope the interview would be made public. I'm all for transparency in government and in this investigation, something we didn't get and still don't have regarding the "investigation" (LOL!) into Hillary.

 

[K9Buck]

The reason for the special counsel was Trump's big mouth.

Speaking of special counsel, why didn't Loretta Lynch recuse herself from the Hillary "investigation" and appoint a special counsel? Lynch was tasked with deciding whether or not Hillary, who appeared to be her likely next boss, should be prosecuted. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Do you remember that Comey testified to congress that Lynch asked him to refer to the "investigation" as a "matter"? Obviously, Lynch DID have a COI and actively worked to protect Hillary. We also know that she met with the husband of the target of the investigation for an alleged social call. Riiiiiight.

 

[Siete]

the Russians are toasting Clintons victory, they didnt want Trump to win.

 

[JoeB131]

If the Russians had hacked the server of the Tea Party, would a special counsel have been appointed? Yea, I didn't think so either.

Since the "Tea Party" isn't an actual political party with a server, probably not.

If they hacked the GOP server, and Hillary had won, you know damned well there'd be a special counsel.

 

[Meister]

Dude, Comey is the MAN he put down Grossly Negligent and Strzok (not the MAN) changed it to Extremely Careless. Now you can look like a partisan dupe if you want,
but you will be called out on it.

And Comey accepted that change. Undoubtedly, Comey knew the consequences of what he originally wrote and he knew the consequences for Hillary when he agreed to accept Strzok's change.

Here is what I think.

Comey thought Hillary was going to win the election. He knew that, even if he recommended prosecution, Loretta Lynch was NOT going to indict Hillary. Therefore Comey, who wanted to protect his own career, played ball by coming up with the absurd excuse that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary.

Ask yourself why did he accept the change....if he did? Big difference between the two. You know it was all political regardless what Slade thinks. The FBI flipped for bias.
Would they have done that if it was Trump? Be truthful.

They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket science

"Their decision", it wasn't supposed to be their decision. They investigate and report the evidence, Comey deemed it gross negligence, then overstepped his authority and wouldn't prosecute. Geeze, if it warranted gross negligence which in his opinion it did, then it should have had the legs to stand on as is and let the chips fall. Like I said, they wouldn't have done this if Trump was in hillary's shoes.

You obviously don’t respect his decisions except as it seems when they align with yours. Fact is you don’t know when he wrote the draft or what the reasons were for using the words he used. You seem to have no problems filling in the blanks though.

Yes, they investigate and gather evidence and then make recommendations to the DOJ. The unorthodox element here was the public statement which was pretty damning for Clinton don’t you think?

It comes down to bias, and as I stated earlier, Trump wouldn't have enjoyed the same treatment from the two and you didn't deny that part of my post.