Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think all of that is just, "pork barrel". To provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, is what we are supposed to be doing. Especially when the right wing Refuses to Pay, world intervention Tax Rates.You don’t know that... and before you yell outrage perhaps you should figure out what exactly it is.
Do you believe that government officials should be able to do whatever they like with classified material?
I happen to think that government officials have a duty to protect the country by protecting classified materials. And if said officials breach that duty, they should be prosecuted.
Who is to say that one doesn't "innocently" transmit such materials as a way to assist a foreign intelligence agency and then have the excuse that "they didn't intend to do anything bad" in the unlikely event that they got caught?
I agree that the investigation is dragging... but they have been making indictments so it is also producing. They obviously have more to come
Issuing indictments against foreign intelligence agents for hacking is a first. It's long on political messaging and short on substance.
If the Germans adopted Mueller's rationale, the German government would be issuing indictments against NSA agents.
It's just one more very suspicious activity by the deep staters. Normally in circumstances like this, the indictments wouldn't be made public because the accused will simply avoid going to a country where they'll be arrested.I agree that the investigation is dragging... but they have been making indictments so it is also producing. They obviously have more to come
Issuing indictments against foreign intelligence agents for hacking is a first. It's long on political messaging and short on substance.
If the Germans adopted Mueller's rationale, the German government would be issuing indictments against NSA agents.
I think Trump got a couple shiney gifts from the FBI when Comey went public with the investigations findings, something that they never do. And when he came back out and announced the new batch of emails they are investigating a week before the election.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.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."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.They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket scienceAsk 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.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.
Would they have done that if it was Trump? Be truthful.
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?
At least your admitting to just how screwed up the FBI was and the corruption in the handling of this debacle.I think Trump got a couple shiney gifts from the FBI when Comey went public with the investigations findings, something that they never do. And when he came back out and announced the new batch of emails they are investigating a week before the election.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.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."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.They changed it because using “gross negligence” wouldn’t support their decision to not prosecute. They had to change it. It’s not rocket scienceAsk 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.
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?
I think each side is blowing everything way out of proportion. I understood Comeys reasons for making that announcement. We were in the heat of a presidential campaign and the American public needed clarity. Unfortunately the spin doctors on both sides make clarity a hard thing to achieveAt least your admitting to just how screwed up the FBI was and the corruption in the handling of this debacle.I think Trump got a couple shiney gifts from the FBI when Comey went public with the investigations findings, something that they never do. And when he came back out and announced the new batch of emails they are investigating a week before the election.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.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."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.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
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?
Because we are not a Third World nation, parrot.Question remains why that bag of hot air Hillary still walking around free ?
Also because the Republican lead White House, DOJ, and FBI have not pursued her, meaning they all must be “in on it” too.Because we are not a Third World nation, parrot.Question remains why that bag of hot air Hillary still walking around free ?
At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Yeah it’s a pointless argument not based on facts. I’m talking about both the Russian influence and Trumps retort pivot to the illegal votes. None of it can be substantiated so claiming such is just a waste of time. What we can do is focus on protecting against future efforts to illegally influence elections. That would be a conversation worth having.At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
What about the perception of simple, graft?At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
The right wing has no moral or legal credibility to complain about less fortunate, immoral illegals.Yeah it’s a pointless argument not based on facts. I’m talking about both the Russian influence and Trumps retort pivot to the illegal votes. None of it can be substantiated so claiming such is just a waste of time. What we can do is focus on protecting against future efforts to illegally influence elections. That would be a conversation worth having.At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
The FBI informed the right wing the Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign.All this is bullshit. Hacking has been going on WAY before Trump got in the WH.
I think this conversation needs to be brought back to the middle. Americans have every right to want our immigration system to work properly and invite people into our country through a legal process. We also need to be more honest and realistic about how we deal with millions of undocumented that are living in our country. The polarized and hyperbolic conversations go nowhereThe right wing has no moral or legal credibility to complain about less fortunate, immoral illegals.Yeah it’s a pointless argument not based on facts. I’m talking about both the Russian influence and Trumps retort pivot to the illegal votes. None of it can be substantiated so claiming such is just a waste of time. What we can do is focus on protecting against future efforts to illegally influence elections. That would be a conversation worth having.At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
We allege to subscribe to Capitalism.I think this conversation needs to be brought back to the middle. Americans have every right to want our immigration system to work properly and invite people into our country through a legal process. We also need to be more honest and realistic about how we deal with millions of undocumented that are living in our country. The polarized and hyperbolic conversations go nowhereThe right wing has no moral or legal credibility to complain about less fortunate, immoral illegals.Yeah it’s a pointless argument not based on facts. I’m talking about both the Russian influence and Trumps retort pivot to the illegal votes. None of it can be substantiated so claiming such is just a waste of time. What we can do is focus on protecting against future efforts to illegally influence elections. That would be a conversation worth having.At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
The right wing has no moral or legal credibility to complain about less fortunate, immoral illegals.Yeah it’s a pointless argument not based on facts. I’m talking about both the Russian influence and Trumps retort pivot to the illegal votes. None of it can be substantiated so claiming such is just a waste of time. What we can do is focus on protecting against future efforts to illegally influence elections. That would be a conversation worth having.At this point does it really matter what it was meant for?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.
Because you have some Democrats going around claiming that the Russians tilted the election to Trump, that Trump would not have won without Russian interference. I doubt that the votes that the Russians influenced equaled the number of votes that illegals cast. Neither was enough to change the outcome of the election, but the illegal vote padded Hillary's popular vote total.
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.What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of thingsThey 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".
This, for one.
Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics
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.
The fact is that the Russians wanted Trump to win.
Why do you say that is a "fact"?
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.What makes you think that? From the sound of that first draft it appears they were leaning on the prosecute side of thingsIt seems they decided not to prosecute long before they were even deep into the "investigation".
This, for one.
Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics
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.
This is not a tv show where the perpetrator confesses in time for the last commercial. The investigation was largely complete except for the interview. Since nothing was materially expected to change, he thought about what he would say in a letter. There was nothing sinister.
