“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”
And there you have it.
Link
Former FBI agents...are RUSSIANS?!?!
So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
(11-04-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
(11-04-2016 04:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
You asked about leaks. They are leaking info about an active investigation cause it was getting spiked otherwise. The motive? Well, you can call it whatever you'd like. If repeating "changing the course of an election" makes you warm and fuzzy, good. Go with that.
(11-04-2016 04:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
You asked about leaks. They are leaking info about an active investigation cause it was getting spiked otherwise. The motive? Well, you can call it whatever you'd like. If repeating "changing the course of an election" makes you warm and fuzzy, good. Go with that.
So let me see if I have this straight. Giuliani gets info that an indictment is likely because the investigation was going to get spiked? That doesn't make any sense.
But you are ok with the leaks from the justice department?
(11-04-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
You asked about leaks. They are leaking info about an active investigation cause it was getting spiked otherwise. The motive? Well, you can call it whatever you'd like. If repeating "changing the course of an election" makes you warm and fuzzy, good. Go with that.
So let me see if I have this straight. Giuliani gets info that an indictment is likely because the investigation was going to get spiked? That doesn't make any sense.
Start the round and around again.
Yes, you are correct, that doesn't make any sense. Because, no you don't have it straight.
Too bad DOJ won't do their job, I expect a couple of bombshell leaks soon. I like it.
It's nothing more than a position that can't be proven wrong -- the easiest kind to take on the internet.
It doesn't prove anything and doesn't disprove anything.
It's a perch, from which someone can spout anything he/she wants, while saying "oh yeah, well then disprove me!"
His position is that:
- FBI guys are working on an investigation of Clinton
- the FBI guys have evidence that would normally result in an indictment
- but they're worried the case is going to get squashed before the indictment can come
- so they leaked that there's sufficient evidence for an indictment
And the beauty (or stench, if you will) of it: when no indictment ever comes (which is what will happen), he can just claim that it did indeed get squashed.
It's a coward's argument. Like I said, that's what you do on the internet.
Bwahahaha! Your filthy corruptocrat candidate had the kitchen light clicked on her personal coackroaches.
(11-04-2016 04:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]His position is that:
- FBI guys are working on an investigation of Clinton
- the FBI guys have evidence that would normally result in an indictment
- but they're worried the case is going to get squashed before the indictment can come
- so they leaked that there's sufficient evidence for an indictment
And the beauty (or stench, if you will) of it: when no indictment ever comes (which is what will happen), he can just claim that it did indeed get squashed.
It's a coward's argument. Like I said, that's what you do on the internet.
It's also the argument of the former FBI Asst. Director.
Sooo, yea. Coward that guy.
Sure. Being a former member of the FBI does not make someone incapable of taking up a coward's argument.
You're happy to follow him there, as it suits what you want to believe.
(11-04-2016 04:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2016 04:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]So what?
Leaks from DeeCee are like Mexicans jumping the southern border. All day, all night, 24/7...
I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
You're confusing trying to change the course of an election and doing their jobs.
(11-04-2016 03:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”
And there you have it.
Link
Butthurt
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
If the tables were turned the right wing screech machine would be in overdrive. Team over country.
Giuliani's first wife is his second cousin. I'm just saying.
(11-04-2016 04:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]I don't disagree but this is from the FBI. Has there ever been a case where members in the FBI actively try and change the course of an election?
False/self-serving narrative. Are they trying to change the course of an election, or trying to convict someone of a crime? Isn't failing to prosecute someone ALSO potentially changing the course of an election?
Would you be happier if they waited and then convicted (or tied up the agenda for) a sitting President?