America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by DrafterX. 54 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
IG Report
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
MACS Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2018, 8:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
How are the libs going to defend this? Looks pretty bad.

Texts and e-mails show the FBI/DOJ did everything they could to help Hillary and hurt Trump. Wow.
teedubbya Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2018, 8:59 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
MACS wrote:
How are the libs going to defend this? Looks pretty bad.

Texts and e-mails show the FBI/DOJ did everything they could to help Hillary and hurt Trump. Wow.



Have you read it?
MACS Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2018, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
teedubbya wrote:
Have you read it?


LOL! I expected no less from you. No, obviously I have not... but I have been watching the news, and seeing a lot of what's in the 500 page report. Direct quotes, as well as legal analyst opinions.

Of course, you know FOX is hammering on it, and CNN is attempting to defend it and act like it's not a big deal.
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2018, 9:33 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I haven’t read it either.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2018, 10:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Here it is if you want to read the 500 pages and multiple attachments that are not classified.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

David (dpnewell)
victor809 Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 12:44 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Funny... One set of media says it means one thing. The other set of media says the exact opposite.

You chose one side MACS... I'm not going to take a stand until more time has passed and sufficient information from it is digested. But it's pretty clear youre buying in on one sides interpretation.
MACS Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Reporter to Obama: When did you learn about Secretary Clinton using her own personal e-mail?

Obama: When you did...

Obama received e-mails FROM Hillary's personal e-mail. Ooops. Liar.

It proves Comey is a liar. It proves the people investigating Trump were CLEARLY against him and for Hillary.

I've been watching both FOX and CNN... and yes, you are correct on which "version" I find more believable. I know that's not a surprise.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
d'oh!

Didn't see this thread...
tailgater Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Funny... One set of media says it means one thing. The other set of media says the exact opposite.
.



Most of my news feeds are from traditionally left leaning sources such as CNN.

Most of what I've read has either supported the Trump position, or seemed too defensive in the reporting.

The direct email quotes by some in the FBI is damning, to say the least.
Such as FBI agent Strzok's response to his bang--buddy's question about Trump winning the election: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

It's reassuring that CNN's analyst claims this didn't impact Strzok's approach to the investigation. That he remained impartial.
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:03 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
And lawyer numbe one, who's name they won't release.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 11:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Try reading the NPR summary. It seems pretty middle of the road.
victor809 Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The IG report itself states that the investigators views did not impact the decisions made. That's not CNN....
dstieger Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 11:51 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
victor809 wrote:
The IG report itself states that the investigators views did not impact the decisions made.


Heard that as well. I'd like to hear a lot more of the reasoning that led to that conclusion. More than counter-intuitive, it sounds sorta biased or plain irrational
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I checked the investigation summary report.
Best I can understand is they looked at the actions and decisions made by those individuals and determined that they were in line with policies and procedures and best practices. Just like they decided that Comeys actions regarding announcing the reopening of Clinton's investigation didn't follow the practices at the organization.

I'm sure the body of the report has more details, but I'm working off my phone and can't scrounge through it easily.
tailgater Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
The IG report itself states that the investigators views did not impact the decisions made. That's not CNN....


We're asking the fox to guard the hen house.
The IG is repeatedly saying that there were many mis-steps and unethical behaviors, but they offer the caveat that no laws were broken.

If we learned anything from the left, this isn't about laws, but rather about corruption at the highest levels.

Give it two days.

then the NYT can go back to blaming Russia.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So now your argument has changed from "CNN analysts are giving a left slanted analysis of the report and I don't trust it" to " the report is biased because they're investigating themselves".

Whatever... Not worth my time
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
It would be nice to see the redactions.. the stuff they had to hide in best interest of national security and stuff.. Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 4:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
This just released:

BarryS: why aren't you out campaigning??
Hillary: hung over..
BarryS: get off your fat ass..
Hillary: what about my emails..??
BarryS: your momma's emails..
Hillary: what if Trump finds out..??
BarryS: F Trump..

Film at 11... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 5:13 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
IG report has enough content to get cons and libs roiled...mostly stuff we already knew, or concluded based on what we did know. One take away for the cons is the finding that a few other FBI agents expressed anti-Trump sentiments in emails and texts, but concluded that such un-professional conduct, prohibited by policy, was not widespread. Only five such members were identified, including the two known previously who were immediately relieved of duty in the Mueller investigation, among the thousands of FBI employees...


No mention of any anti-Hillary emails... two possible conclusions: 1) the FBI is a deep-state liberal institution that is biased against cons; 2) con FBI peeps were smart enough to avoid documenting anti-Hillary sentiments in emails prior to the election, which everyone expected her to win and she would be their new boss...

One take-away for the libs: FBI was correct in the decision to not prosecute Hillary over the emails, but Comey's lack of judgement in making the two pre-election announcements were serious lapses... may have tipped the elections to Trump...

This report by the OIG only reviewed the FBI's conduct of investigations of the Hillary emails, and did not examine the Special Counsel's investigation of Russian interference in our elections and possible conspiracy by Americans.
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 5:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
What Hillary did was illegal.. what Comey did was illegal.. how was it correct not to prosecute..?? Because Comey didn't want to set a precedent..?? Huh


The SG will report on collusion soon..Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 5:23 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
And Obama obviously knew about Hillary's illegal server and emails... Mellow
Speyside Offline
#22 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 5:48 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I find 2 points quite interesting.

1) Strzok's email and associated emails.
2) Comey's double standard of publicly speaking about the email/server investigation which is not normal procedure, and not publicly speaking about the collusion investigation which is normal procedure.

To me both of these are daming.
DrafterX Offline
#23 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Damn them..!! Mad
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 7:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
This just released:

BarryS: why aren't you out campaigning??
Hillary: hung over..
BarryS: get off your fat ass..
Hillary: what about my emails..??
BarryS: your momma's emails..
Hillary: what if Trump finds out..??
BarryS: F Trump..

Film at 11... Mellow

this is comic gold!
You have a beautiful mind, X.
frankj1 Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
victor809 wrote:
So now your argument has changed from "CNN analysts are giving a left slanted analysis of the report and I don't trust it" to " the report is biased because they're investigating themselves".

Whatever... Not worth my time

it's only day one.
wait til I post what came in my copy of The Daily Worker today.
ZRX1200 Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
I only read Mother Jones.
Speyside Offline
#27 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 7:34 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I was sure you read Radix Journal.
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 7:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
So now your argument has changed from "CNN analysts are giving a left slanted analysis of the report and I don't trust it" to " the report is biased because they're investigating themselves".

Whatever... Not worth my time




If you think I made not one, but two opposing (or different) arguments then you are too sensitive.
I was just discussing the subject matter.
It's called a conversation.
Adults have them.
Google it.
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:17 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
when/if I grow up...
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I didn't say they are opposing.
You moved the goalpost... And now you moved it all the way over to "I wouldn't accept anything in that report anyway". At that point why would I bother having a conversation about the content of the report with you?
victor809 Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
.... Let me rephrase. You moved it over to "I wouldn't accept anything in that report that doesn't math up with my preconcieved expectations that the FBI is biased against trump and has been allowing that to impact their investigation".... Because you clearly accept the reports information that some numbers of agents texted stuff that was political.
victor809 Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
....math =match... Goddammit
Speyside Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Jun 15 2018, 9:40 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I don't know, I kind of like math up. Perhaps you just came up with a new catch phrase. Such as Tail, math up 1+1 is not 3 even though you think it is not. Or Tail, math up a U.S. federal inspector general (IG) is the head of an independent, non-partisan organization established within each executive branch agency assigned to audit the agency’s operation in order to discover and investigate cases of misconduct, waste, fraud and other abuse of government procedures occurring within the agency, even though you think an IG is not.
tailgater Offline
#34 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
.... Let me rephrase. You moved it over to "I wouldn't accept anything in that report that doesn't math up with my preconcieved expectations that the FBI is biased against trump and has been allowing that to impact their investigation".... Because you clearly accept the reports information that some numbers of agents texted stuff that was political.


Glad this isn't worth your time.

LOL!
tailgater Offline
#35 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
.... Let me rephrase. You moved it over to "I wouldn't accept anything in that report that doesn't math up with my preconcieved expectations that the FBI is biased against trump and has been allowing that to impact their investigation".... Because you clearly accept the reports information that some numbers of agents texted stuff that was political.


And for the record, I didn't say anything even remotely close to this.
This is quite literally a pure fabrication by you.
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
great job, tail.

now "literal fabrication" will be the new buzzword for Slanders-Huckstery

thanks a pant load.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#37 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 9:16 AM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^That statement sounds like a literal fabrication.

David
victor809 Offline
#38 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You said it with your eyes tail... You said it with your eyes.
Speyside Offline
#39 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 11:07 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Nah, Sarah uses illiterate fabrications.
delta1 Offline
#40 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 11:54 AM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
DrafterX wrote:
What Hillary did was illegal.. what Comey did was illegal.. how was it correct not to prosecute..?? Because Comey didn't want to set a precedent..?? Huh


The SG will report on collusion soon..Mellow


Not sure if either actually violated a criminal law...violations of policies, procedures and best practices, for sure...

But other factors go into a decision to file criminal charges.... if either did violate a criminal law, is there substantial evidence of the violation...is there proof of criminal intent....all which the prosecutor must weigh and then decide whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt...

Most cons were convinced that Hillary violated some laws over Benghazi... after more than 2 years of exhausting investigation, led by a seasoned prosecutor, Trey Gowdy...zilch...and that was not a real criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is much higher... a "preponderance of the evidence" is much easier to reach than "beyond a reasonable doubt"


Again...if Hillary and Comey violated any criminal laws...Jeff Sessions, a Republican, is the AG...don't know why the cons aren't pressuring him to prosecute...
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 3:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
It's not over... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#42 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 6:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
^That statement sounds like a literal fabrication.

David

I literally made it up on the spot.
Abrignac Offline
#43 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 6:30 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
One could argue that a grand jury should have be empaneled. Instead Comey is the one who made the decision to refuse prosecution. He based that on lack of criminal intent which is one of the 3 required components of a criminal act. However, an exception to intent exists when the law requires someone to act, and they fail to do so

When Hillary commissioned her private email server to conduct official government business she became responsible for what information was sent and received from it. When classified material which was unsecured passed through it, she broke the law. She should have been indicted.
Abrignac Offline
#44 Posted: Sat, Jun 16 2018, 6:31 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
delta1 wrote:
Not sure if either actually violated a criminal law...violations of policies, procedures and best practices, for sure...

But other factors go into a decision to file criminal charges.... if either did violate a criminal law, is there substantial evidence of the violation...is there proof of criminal intent....all which the prosecutor must weigh and then decide whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt...

Most cons were convinced that Hillary violated some laws over Benghazi... after more than 2 years of exhausting investigation, led by a seasoned prosecutor, Trey Gowdy...zilch...and that was not a real criminal proceeding where the burden of proof is much higher... a "preponderance of the evidence" is much easier to reach than "beyond a reasonable doubt"


Again...if Hillary and Comey violated any criminal laws...Jeff Sessions, a Republican, is the AG...don't know why the cons aren't pressuring him to prosecute...


Not needed in this case.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#45 Posted: Sun, Jun 17 2018, 12:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
delta1 wrote:
Not sure if either actually violated a criminal law...violations of policies, procedures and best practices, for sure...


U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


Guilty on ALL counts.
delta1 Offline
#46 Posted: Sun, Jun 17 2018, 3:51 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Abrignac and DMV should send letters to their US Reps and Senators, urging them to put pressure on the President and his AG, Jeff Sessions, to get right to work on the prosecution of Hillary. It's obvious that they don't know what they are doing, and aren't paying attention to their staunchest supporters among their voting base...it is a total surprise that prosecuting that witch hasn't crossed their minds...

And to make Mr. Magoo's job easier, they should pass along their legal advice...
tailgater Offline
#47 Posted: Sun, Jun 17 2018, 7:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
You said it with your eyes tail... You said it with your eyes.


That wasn't my eye...
tailgater Offline
#48 Posted: Sun, Jun 17 2018, 7:19 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:


thanks a pant load.


If I only had a nickel...
frankj1 Offline
#49 Posted: Sun, Jun 17 2018, 10:11 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
I am a pretty good straight man.
teedubbya Offline
#50 Posted: Mon, Jun 18 2018, 7:31 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Just starting to read it. I read IG reports periodically to implement suggestions. This one is fairly straight forward.

I am shocked SHOCKED to see that so far what I am reading doesn’t line up nicely with Fox or MSNBCs reporting. It’s as if they are cherry picking and reporting out of context. I’m sure that’s an accident. I’m also sure it’s an accident some of that’s regurgitated in here.

The little I’ve seen on cnn seems almost down the middle but admittedly I’ve not watched any of the opinion and entertainment shows.

Hannity and the like (don’t know the names of the nbc folks like the tip O’Neil staffer) are very dishonest clowns. If you believe 5% of what they say you are a fool..... and likely beleive obama is a Muslim who wasn’t born here and bush and Cheney planned 911.

Alex jones and Tyler durden .... now there’s some guys that know their ****. If you’ve ever believed or quoted them you are someone who really knows what goes on behind the curtain and are smarter than 99% of the sheeple.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top