This is starting to look more and more what happened.

Quote:There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the “deep state,” a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.

However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.

Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.

As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

Keep Reading Here

And she still lost

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Former US Attorney: 'James Comey Sold His Soul to the Devil'

(12-15-2017 10:29 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Former US Attorney: 'James Comey Sold His Soul to the Devil'

You are very gullible.

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

So, what do you think happened?

(12-16-2017 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

So, what do you think happened?

The FBI and DOJ didn't plot to clear HRC or bring down DJT.

(12-16-2017 11:46 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

So, what do you think happened?

The FBI and DOJ didn't plot to clear HRC or bring down DJT.

So what is the meaning of the pretty strong circumstantial evidence that points toward that.

Circumstantial evidence is just that, it points toward a result but does not prove it. There could always be other explanations. What are they?

(12-16-2017 11:46 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

So, what do you think happened?

The FBI and DOJ didn't plot to clear HRC or bring down DJT.

Who killed Seth Rich?

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

And you are blind.

The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.

Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.

“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.

Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.

But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.

And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.

More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.

No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.

But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

(12-16-2017 11:51 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

And you are blind.

Are you this gullible? It is an attempt by Trump supporters to distract and discredit. To draw attention away from a very important investigation of the role played by foreign nations in the election process and any involvement by campaign officials.

Let the investigation run it's course.

(12-16-2017 11:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

Source? Assuming you are copying from somewhere, please annotate. I'd like to go there and read it myself, to see if there is more.

The attempt to "exonerate" Hillary was really pretty pathetic. It's not that she didn't commit crimes, in fact here are the crimes she committed. We just don't recommend prosecuting her for them.

I really think that backfired in a way. I think anybody who served in the armed services was offended. We went to training session after training session where it was drummed into us--you mishandle classified information, and you do 40 in Leavenworth. Then she mishandles it grossly, and nothing happened. I think a lot of people sat around VFW halls and talked about that, and the more they talked the more pissed off they got. And they talked to their blue collar buddies who were pissed off about jobs going overseas, and all of a sudden Hillary couldn't win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

(12-16-2017 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

Source? Assuming you are copying from somewhere, please annotate. I'd like to go there and read it myself, to see if there is more.

The attempt to "exonerate" Hillary was really pretty pathetic. It's not that she didn't commit crimes, in fact here are the crimes she committed. We just don't recommend prosecuting her for them.

I really think that backfired in a way. I think anybody who served in the armed services was offended. We went to training session after training session where it was drummed into us--you mishandle classified information, and you do 40 in Leavenworth. Then she mishandles it grossly, and nothing happened. I think a lot of people sat around VFW halls and talked about that, and the more they talked the more pissed off they got. And they talked to their blue collar buddies who were pissed off about jobs going overseas, and all of a sudden Hillary couldn't win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

From the link in the original post in this thread. I am going to post all parts of it in sections. Too large to post all at once. It is worth the time to read.

The Texts

Quote:The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”

At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”

One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.

Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).

Strzok: “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”

It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.

Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.

This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”

As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.

This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.

Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.

If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.

Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”

The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.

What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.

(12-16-2017 12:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:51 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are very gullible.

And you are blind.

Are you this gullible? It is an attempt by Trump supporters to distract and discredit. To draw attention away from a very important investigation of the role played by foreign nations in the election process and any involvement by campaign officials.

Let the investigation run it's course.

Which investigation? The one where they are looking into Manafort's actions 10 years ago? Or where the Obama DOJ and FBI decrimiinalized a crime then committed sedition? Because that last one is just now getting going. You might want to buckle up.

(12-16-2017 12:16 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

Source? Assuming you are copying from somewhere, please annotate. I'd like to go there and read it myself, to see if there is more.

The attempt to "exonerate" Hillary was really pretty pathetic. It's not that she didn't commit crimes, in fact here are the crimes she committed. We just don't recommend prosecuting her for them.

I really think that backfired in a way. I think anybody who served in the armed services was offended. We went to training session after training session where it was drummed into us--you mishandle classified information, and you do 40 in Leavenworth. Then she mishandles it grossly, and nothing happened. I think a lot of people sat around VFW halls and talked about that, and the more they talked the more pissed off they got. And they talked to their blue collar buddies who were pissed off about jobs going overseas, and all of a sudden Hillary couldn't win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

From the link in the original post in this thread. I am going to post all parts of it in sections. Too large to post all at once. It is worth the time to read.

Gotcha. It is all worth reading. Just don't want you to get in trouble with the citation Nazis.

(12-16-2017 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

Source? Assuming you are copying from somewhere, please annotate. I'd like to go there and read it myself, to see if there is more.

The attempt to "exonerate" Hillary was really pretty pathetic. It's not that she didn't commit crimes, in fact here are the crimes she committed. We just don't recommend prosecuting her for them.

I really think that backfired in a way. I think anybody who served in the armed services was offended. We went to training session after training session where it was drummed into us--you mishandle classified information, and you do 40 in Leavenworth. Then she mishandles it grossly, and nothing happened. I think a lot of people sat around VFW halls and talked about that, and the more they talked the more pissed off they got. And they talked to their blue collar buddies who were pissed off about jobs going overseas, and all of a sudden Hillary couldn't win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

HRC's many years in the public eye certainly created the baggage needed for a very unpopular and somewhat unhinged candidate like DJT to win the presidency. I don't doubt that there were many conversations at the VFW bar and many other bars for that matter, right along those lines. I think most other possible Democratic candidates would have won in 2016. But a plot by the FBI and/or DOJ, no, just no. Not realistic. Comley's last days public announcement that they would be reopening the investigation to look at that laptop in fact probably was the nail in the coffin for HRC. Was that a conspiracy by the FBI to tip the scales to DJT favor? No, some want to say it was but it wasn't.

(12-16-2017 12:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  The Plans

Quote:The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

Source? Assuming you are copying from somewhere, please annotate. I'd like to go there and read it myself, to see if there is more.

The attempt to "exonerate" Hillary was really pretty pathetic. It's not that she didn't commit crimes, in fact here are the crimes she committed. We just don't recommend prosecuting her for them.

I really think that backfired in a way. I think anybody who served in the armed services was offended. We went to training session after training session where it was drummed into us--you mishandle classified information, and you do 40 in Leavenworth. Then she mishandles it grossly, and nothing happened. I think a lot of people sat around VFW halls and talked about that, and the more they talked the more pissed off they got. And they talked to their blue collar buddies who were pissed off about jobs going overseas, and all of a sudden Hillary couldn't win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

HRC's many years in the public eye certainly created the baggage needed for a very unpopular and somewhat unhinged candidate like DJT to win the presidency. I don't doubt that there were many conversations at the VFW bar and many other bars for that right long those lines. I think most other possible Democratic candidates would have won in 2016. But a plot by the FBI and/or DOJ, no, just no. Not realistic. Comley's last days public announcement that they would be reopening the investigation to look at that laptop in fact probably was the nail in the coffin for HRC. Was that a conspiracy by the FBI to tip the scales to DJT favor? No, some want to say it was but it wasn't.

Comey had to re-open it and then close it quickly. He had FBI agents resigning left and right. When news of that got out, and it was perceived they were protecting Hillary, it could cause her to lose. He had to get out in front of it because Comey thought he was god.