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.
Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?
I wonder if you'd say the same things if the comments were in the other direction.OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?
I won't ask, of course, why bother. But I do wonder.
.
Except they were.
'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say
Highly unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton intensified after James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment over her use of a private email server
Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.
Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.
“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.
This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.
The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.
'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say
The anti-Clinton insurgency at the FBI, explained
It’s come to this: The FBI, America’s premier law enforcement agency, just had to decide whether to investigate one of its own Twitter accounts to see if it had an anti-Hillary Clinton bias.
The account in question, @FBIRecordsVault, burst into the news earlier this week after abruptly posting records related to Bill Clinton’s last-minute — and deeply controversial — pardon of financier Marc Rich. An FBI official said in an interview that the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility referred the matter to its Inspection Division for a possible investigation into whether anyone in the FBI had intentionally released the documents to hurt Hillary Clinton.
The official said the bureau’s internal watchdog opted against opening a formal investigation. Still, the fact that such a decision even had to be made highlights the crisis engulfing the bureau in the days since FBI Director James Comey stunned observers inside and outside the bureau by notifying Congress just 11 days before the election that he was renewing the dormant probe into Clinton’s private email server.
Comey has since come under sustained criticism from law enforcement veterans and lawmakers from both parties who believe he broke with longstanding Justice Department policies by directly intruding into the presidential race — and potentially impacting its outcome.
“There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election,” George J. Terwilliger III, a deputy attorney general under President George Bush, told the New York Times last week. “Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes, that makes for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.”
Comey dropped another bombshell Sunday when he released a new letter to lawmakers saying the FBI had seen nothing in its review of the newly discovered trove of emails that would change his July recommendation that Clinton not face criminal charges.
Voters have spent days being barraged by round-the-clock coverage of his first letter, however, and Sunday’s quasi-retraction could be way too little, too late. That’s particularly true for the millions of Americans who have cast early ballots since Comey made his announcement.
The FBI chief also hasn’t been the only member of the FBI bureau stepping into the election. Earlier this week, unnamed sources within the bureau told the Wall Street Journal that some FBI agents believed they had enough evidence to begin an aggressive investigation into a potential pay-to-play scheme at the Clinton Foundation, but were overruled by more senior officials.
Another anti-Clinton leak came Thursday, when sources thought to be disgruntled FBI officials told Fox News that an indictment was coming in the Clinton Foundation case. The story gave Trump a new talking point, dominated Fox’s primetime news programming, and rocketed across the conservative media before being debunked by an array of other media outlets. By that point, though, the damage had already been done.
Taken together, it’s easy to come away with the conclusion that the FBI is out to get Hillary Clinton. The truth, though, is far more complicated. The FBI isn’t a monolith, and it isn’t the bureau as a whole that is targeting Clinton. Experts who study the FBI believe the leaks are coming from a small clique of agents who profoundly distrust Clinton and believe she deserves to be punished for what they see as a long record of ethically dubious behavior.
The anti-Clinton insurgency at the FBI, explained
New signs of anti-Clinton bias within FBI
GOP Rep. Devin Nunes admits getting leaked info about Clinton emails during campaign as a lawyer recalls FBI employees saying, "You guys are finally going to get that b----."
New signs of anti-Clinton bias within FBI
She lost her show. How was she "allowed" anything? On the other hand, Farrakhan is widely respected in the Democrat party.Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?
So Roseanna is allowed an opinion whereby she can call a black woman a monkey, but Farrakhan is not if he calls whites devils. Nor could Rev. Wright for saying G-D America. Black lives matter can't even create a slogan that reflects what they are fighting for without people trying to shut down or alter their opinion.
She lost her show. How was she "allowed" anything? On the other hand, Farrakhan is widely respected in the Democrat party.Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?
So Roseanna is allowed an opinion whereby she can call a black woman a monkey, but Farrakhan is not if he calls whites devils. Nor could Rev. Wright for saying G-D America. Black lives matter can't even create a slogan that reflects what they are fighting for without people trying to shut down or alter their opinion.
She lost her show. How was she "allowed" anything? On the other hand, Farrakhan is widely respected in the Democrat party.Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?
So Roseanna is allowed an opinion whereby she can call a black woman a monkey, but Farrakhan is not if he calls whites devils. Nor could Rev. Wright for saying G-D America. Black lives matter can't even create a slogan that reflects what they are fighting for without people trying to shut down or alter their opinion.
I wouldn't exactly say that.
Roseanne was making money from syndication fees from her earlier show.
Now explain to me why Minister Farrakhan might feel as he does towards whites? I mean he is 85 years old. I guess he has no reason to feel any ill feelings about how whites continue doing things. After all he was free, had the right to vote and equal access to every public accommodation, educational and employment opportunities whites had throughout his entire life. I guess I missed thepat of history cass hat tols us how w al came over here on the mayglower.
Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.
The FBI has already destroyed its credibility, and its obviously partisan actions are the reason. We realize you will defend these corrupt douchebags to the bitter end.You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.
I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.
Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.
I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?
Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.
As I mentioned before. On page 2 of this OP you will see my reaction when they did target a Democrat, I directly quoted myself. I came in on the side of the FBI in that instance to. So not only are you trying to deliver a low blow by using a logical fallacy. But you are also plain wrong when using it in my case.The FBI has already destroyed its credibility, and its obviously partisan actions are the reason. We realize you will defend these corrupt douchebags to the bitter end.You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/downloadYes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.
I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?
Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.
Only until they target a democrat.
