Operation Crossfire Hurricane: The FBI’s secret cabal against Trump

#153
#153
BigOrangeD said:
They had no choice. It was going to come out and they needed Comey to get out ahead of it and wrap it up quickly. Did you see how fast they went through that so called investigation. The whole point was to clear her quickly. The Clinton's are slime. Just look how they screwed over Bernie Sanders.

Glad you're not my lawyer.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about modern e-discovery technology, you'd know you can go through hundreds of thousands of emails--especially where many are likely to be duplicative of emails you've already reviewed--pretty quickly, especially in an all hands on deck type situation.
 
#154
#154
evillawyer said:
If you knew anything about modern e-discovery technology, you'd know you can go through hundreds of thousands of emails--especially where many are likely to be duplicative of emails you've already reviewed--pretty quickly, especially in an all hands on deck type situation.
Click to expand...

So you think they really did that huh? Man are you gullible. You must be young. And as an IT Guy, I just may know a little more than you think - Like how to tie data together and build relational databases on massive amounts of data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#155
#155
BigOrangeD said:
So you think they really did that huh? Man are you gullible. You must be young. And as an IT Guy, I just may know a little more than you think - Like how to tie data together and build relational databases on massive amounts of data.
Click to expand...

Ok, for the sake of argument let's suppose that the FBI was dead set on getting Hillary elected. First, Comey could have just made the standard announcement upon closing the initial Hillary investigation. Instead, he publicly chastised her. That was outside of FBI norms. How was that a pro-Hillary move? Second, wouldn't the FBI have just stayed silent on the reopening of the Hillary investigation? If they hadn't publicly acknowledged it, there would have been unconfirmed leaks that she was being investigated again. That would have been less damaging to her than the public statement was. Third, why wouldn't they have announced that they had opened an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had been compromised by Russia. Don't you think that would have helped Hillary?

Explain how you can take these known data points and spin them into a coherent theory that the FBI was working to elect Hillary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#158
#158
evillawyer said:
Ok, for the sake of argument let's suppose that the FBI was dead set on getting Hillary elected. First, Comey could have just made the standard announcement upon closing the initial Hillary investigation. Instead, he publicly chastised her. That was outside of FBI norms. How was that a pro-Hillary move? Second, wouldn't the FBI have just stayed silent on the reopening of the Hillary investigation? If they hadn't publicly acknowledged it, there would have been unconfirmed leaks that she was being investigated again. That would have been less damaging to her than the public statement was. Third, why wouldn't they have announced that they had opened an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had been compromised by Russia. Don't you think that would have helped Hillary?

Explain how you can take these known data points and spin them into a coherent theory that the FBI was working to elect Hillary.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm gonna say I'm not buying into the FBI trying to get Hillary elected. So when reading my breakdown of some of your points, don't just automatically throw them away because you think I'm trying to prove something I'm not.

Why would Comey come forward about reopening the Hillary case? Maybe he had no choice? When the Weiner emails surfaced maybe his hand was forced. He wasn't the only one who knew about those emails and he couldn't just do nothing. That would have smacked of impropriety making the appearance of guilt seem even greater. If word got out new evidence emerged and they didn't look into it, then the public would be left with the perception Hillary was being protected from on high. Which I personally think she was, but that's a story for another time.

Why publicly chastise Hillary? Multiple reasons. One, create sympathy from those who wanted to believe she was wrongly being punished. Like it or not, Democrats love that victim angle. Two, create the appearance she wasn't getting off scot free. The public scolding allowed for deflection from the fact she got away scot free. Her crime was at least on the level of that of General Petraeus, but her punishment no where near the severity. Yes, legally the general was given a slap on the wrist, but publicly he was shamed and forced to resign. Hillary suffered minor public embarrassment, but she wasn't kicked out of the game. And again, she got to play that victim angle.

Why not mention the Trump investigation? Well that would have went over like a lead balloon. Do you honestly believe the FBI would want that to be out there? "Hey guys, we know our current boss is a Democrat, but their is nothing disingenuous about us planting a mole in the Republican frontrunner's campaign." That would not have played well to the public. Hell, it would have allowed Trump to play the victim card himself. The better strategy was to save that card to play in case he won. Which he did, and which they have done.

You can hem and haw all you want, but the actions of the FBI and Obama's DoJ are highly questionable when you think on the politics involved. Whether you believe there was impropriety or not, the spectre of such certainly exists, and I'm not sure how you can deny that. If the actions were reversed and the same happened under a Republican President, you would have questions as to if it were politically motivated. Why should it be any different with the situation that has been presented? Because you believe Obama was trustworthy? Not a viable argument when politics are in play, and in DC, politics are always in play.

So while I don't think the FBI was necessarily out to help Hillary win, I don't believe they were trying to make her lose either. I do think they helped her stay a viable candidate. Just on things she actually admitted, precedent shows she should have been more severely punished than she actually was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#160
#160
Orangeburst65 said:
lawgator1 said:
I get it. You don't like politicians who lie all the time and, worse, use government to line their own pockets.

You ever lie personally or in court? Of course so Mr Integrity, we bow at your righteousness.

And please show me where Trump "illegally" lined his pockets from gov funding. Everyone is allowed what is allowed.

And BTW, calling someone else a "liar" is tossing stones at glass houses. That is a dirty term and applicable to everyone.
Click to expand...


I NEVER lie in court.

At the poker table, at the bar, yes. Not in court.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#166
#166
lawgator1 said:
Weezer said:
I defend law enforcement when they get sued for professional liability. Shooting suspects, putting them in jail on weak grounds, etc.
Click to expand...

Assuming you're not pulling my leg, that seems like a weird profession for a Democrat. Defending law enforcement? How did they allow you into the party?

:p
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#167
#167
evillawyer said:
Ok, for the sake of argument let's suppose that the FBI was dead set on getting Hillary elected. First, Comey could have just made the standard announcement upon closing the initial Hillary investigation. Instead, he publicly chastised her. That was outside of FBI norms. How was that a pro-Hillary move? Second, wouldn't the FBI have just stayed silent on the reopening of the Hillary investigation? If they hadn't publicly acknowledged it, there would have been unconfirmed leaks that she was being investigated again. That would have been less damaging to her than the public statement was. Third, why wouldn't they have announced that they had opened an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had been compromised by Russia. Don't you think that would have helped Hillary?

Explain how you can take these known data points and spin them into a coherent theory that the FBI was working to elect Hillary.
Click to expand...

Read above comments from others. It's all there. There will be more to come. Again, why did Strzok Lie? Why did Lisa Page Lie? Why did McCabe lie? We have the text between Page and Strzok. Why are Page(DOJ) and Strzok(FBI) communicating on what friendly Judge(Contreras) to get a warrant from? Why did Contreras recuse himself from the Flynn case? Why did Brennan, Schlapper, and Comey lie? You got more than you know. Do some real homework. Your ideology is blinding you.

Why did Slick Willie meet with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac just before the FBI Decision came out? What was she promised? Supreme Court?

Why did Comey call it a matter and not an investigation?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#175
#175
Weezer said:
Assuming you're not pulling my leg, that seems like a weird profession for a Democrat. Defending law enforcement? How did they allow you into the party?

:p
Click to expand...


I frequently find myself at odds with the classic Dem reaction to a video snippet. Learn all the facts. ALL. Then judge.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top