(02-07-2018 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, editing from "grossly negligent" to "careless" changed the dynamic in Hillary's favor.

Yes

Finally.

Quote:

Simply doing something that favored one person does not warrant an investigation. If there were multiple data points that suggested the FBI was taking action in a way that benefited Clinton, and that was outside of the norm, then I think it would make sense to open an investigation.

We do have multiple data points. They were not all about directly helping Clinton, but they were all about hurting Trump, her opponent. Enough of them to warrant an investigation, and why should anybody who thinks all was done fairly and correctly object to an investigation that would surely show that?

Finally? I never once denied that the outcome of the investigation helped Clinton - in fact, that was a corner stone of my position that the FBI (specifically Comey) was acting in a manner they felt was most just, because they also did things that explicitly hurt Clinton and helped Trump.

Your claim that all actions taken were about hurting trump is ludicrous. Releasing the memo that informed the public that the investigation was reopened because of the Weiner emails in no way, shape, or form, was about hurting Trump.

Heck, even the FISA issue, where Carter Page was survelied, doesn’t actually so acute bias against Trump. Page got on the FBI radar in 2013, well before Trump’s campaign. And the FISA warrant request that has caused such a hullabaloo was granted almost a month after Page publicly indicated that he had left the Trump campaign. That means if the FISA warrant was an explicit attempt to spy on the Trump campaign, as opposed to monitoring an individual with previous connections to a foreign government, who that government had already identified as a target, then the FBI chose a really great target. If the FBI had really wanted to just snoop on the Trump campaign, as opposed to a specific individual who had happened to be involved with it, why not pick a better target, in terms of access?