(06-14-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just another brick in the wall. Like I have said,more evidence of collusion within the DOJ/FBI with the Democrats than in The Collusion probe.

Ladpoints out the tweet is ambiguous, yet also points out that Mueller fired Strock.

why fire him if this was innocent, rah-rah team stuff.

Lots of smoke. we need a special counsel to check this out, so we can be sure.

How at all does this show any potential collusion between DOJ/FBI and the Dems?

And I feel like I pointed out why the ambiguousness was an issue. I also never said this text was why Mueller fired him, it was the multitudes of other texts that showed potential bias. People can have opinions and not show bias, but the safe and conservative route is to cut ties with people who make their opinions public.

I didn’t think my response was that dense and ripe for misunderstanding.

(06-14-2018 11:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just another brick in the wall. Like I have said,more evidence of collusion within the DOJ/FBI with the Democrats than in The Collusion probe.

Ladpoints out the tweet is ambiguous, yet also points out that Mueller fired Strock.

why fire him if this was innocent, rah-rah team stuff.

Lots of smoke. we need a special counsel to check this out, so we can be sure.

How at all does this show any potential collusion between DOJ/FBI and the Dems?

And I feel like I pointed out why the ambiguousness was an issue. I also never said this text was why Mueller fired him, it was the multitudes of other texts that showed potential bias. People can have opinions and not show bias, but the safe and conservative route is to cut ties with people who make their opinions public.

I didn’t think my response was that dense and ripe for misunderstanding.

Another brick in the wall. The cornerstone is the Steele Dossier, Russian intel bought by the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump and used by the FBI to get wiretaps to hurt Trump. But the dossier does not stand alone, and this is just part of the support.

Maybe they didn’t “collude”, in the conspiracy theorist sense used in the Trump probe. Maybe it was just FBI agents acting on behalf of Hillary without her knowledge. But the actions of the FBI/DOJ stink to high heaven of improper actions for one candidate/against another. We have more evidence so far against the FBI than against the Trump Campaign.

(06-11-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

"Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word—like the whip-poor-will, but one eternal monotonous note—Canada! Canada! Canada!" -- John Randolph of Roanoke, Congressman from Virginia, commenting on the "War Hawk" faction (Henry Clay et al.), c. 1812.

(06-15-2018 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 11:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just another brick in the wall. Like I have said,more evidence of collusion within the DOJ/FBI with the Democrats than in The Collusion probe.

Ladpoints out the tweet is ambiguous, yet also points out that Mueller fired Strock.

why fire him if this was innocent, rah-rah team stuff.

Lots of smoke. we need a special counsel to check this out, so we can be sure.

How at all does this show any potential collusion between DOJ/FBI and the Dems?

And I feel like I pointed out why the ambiguousness was an issue. I also never said this text was why Mueller fired him, it was the multitudes of other texts that showed potential bias. People can have opinions and not show bias, but the safe and conservative route is to cut ties with people who make their opinions public.

I didn’t think my response was that dense and ripe for misunderstanding.

Another brick in the wall. The cornerstone is the Steele Dossier, Russian intel bought by the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump and used by the FBI to get wiretaps to hurt Trump. But the dossier does not stand alone, and this is just part of the support.

Maybe they didn’t “collude”, in the conspiracy theorist sense used in the Trump probe. Maybe it was just FBI agents acting on behalf of Hillary without her knowledge. But the actions of the FBI/DOJ stink to high heaven of improper actions for one candidate/against another. We have more evidence so far against the FBI than against the Trump Campaign.

Please provide the EVIDENCE (you used that term) that shows the FBI working against the Trump Campaign. We have EVIDENCE of FBI agents having negative opinions about Trump and EVIDENCE of a very real chance of bias, but where is the EVIDENCE that the bias ever affected what the FBI did?

There's actually more EVIDENCE of the FBI having improper actions that hurt the Clinton campaign - the document you linked to specifically describes how Comey improperly handled reopening the Clinton investigation, which distinctly hurt her right before the election.

The mental gymnastics to say that, based on what we know today, the FBI acted in ways that more actively hurt Trump than Clinton is pretty crazy. The FBI explicitly sat on information about an investigation into Trump and proactively told the American public that Clinton was back under investigation (before they even knew if there was new information on the Weiner laptop).

Again, there is evidence that some FBI agents could have acted in a bias manner against Trump, but there's no evidence to suggest that bias actually filtered into their work. But that's why I said that an investigation into the work Strzok was involved with, with regards to Trump, would be warranted.

(06-15-2018 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 11:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just another brick in the wall. Like I have said,more evidence of collusion within the DOJ/FBI with the Democrats than in The Collusion probe.

Ladpoints out the tweet is ambiguous, yet also points out that Mueller fired Strock.

why fire him if this was innocent, rah-rah team stuff.

Lots of smoke. we need a special counsel to check this out, so we can be sure.

How at all does this show any potential collusion between DOJ/FBI and the Dems?

And I feel like I pointed out why the ambiguousness was an issue. I also never said this text was why Mueller fired him, it was the multitudes of other texts that showed potential bias. People can have opinions and not show bias, but the safe and conservative route is to cut ties with people who make their opinions public.

I didn’t think my response was that dense and ripe for misunderstanding.

Another brick in the wall. The cornerstone is the Steele Dossier, Russian intel bought by the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump and used by the FBI to get wiretaps to hurt Trump. But the dossier does not stand alone, and this is just part of the support.

Maybe they didn’t “collude”, in the conspiracy theorist sense used in the Trump probe. Maybe it was just FBI agents acting on behalf of Hillary without her knowledge. But the actions of the FBI/DOJ stink to high heaven of improper actions for one candidate/against another. We have more evidence so far against the FBI than against the Trump Campaign.

Please provide the EVIDENCE (you used that term) that shows the FBI working against the Trump Campaign. We have EVIDENCE of FBI agents having negative opinions about Trump and EVIDENCE of a very real chance of bias, but where is the EVIDENCE that the bias ever affected what the FBI did?

There's actually more EVIDENCE of the FBI having improper actions that hurt the Clinton campaign - the document you linked to specifically describes how Comey improperly handled reopening the Clinton investigation, which distinctly hurt her right before the election.

The mental gymnastics to say that, based on what we know today, the FBI acted in ways that more actively hurt Trump than Clinton is pretty crazy. The FBI explicitly sat on information about an investigation into Trump and proactively told the American public that Clinton was back under investigation (before they even knew if there was new information on the Weiner laptop).

Again, there is evidence that some FBI agents could have acted in a bias manner against Trump, but there's no evidence to suggest that bias actually filtered into their work. But that's why I said that an investigation into the work Strzok was involved with, with regards to Trump, would be warranted.

The EVIDENCE for FBI malfeasance is BETTERthan than the EVIDENCE that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia. So I’ll show you mine if you will show me yours. All you have so far is some old money laundering stuff, a possible misuse of election funds, and a couple of lying to the FBI charges - not a damn thing about Russia or collusion.

I have a text from a FBI agent saying we are going to stop him. What do you have? I have the FBI presenting the Clinton paid-for dossier to support a FISA warrant. What do you have? I have the top FBI man giving Clinton a pass on prosecution, when it was not his call. What do you have?

I guess you will go to the old complaint that Comey hurt Clinton with his reopening. What EVIDENCE do we have that even one vote was altered? Nearly everybody had made up their minds by then - especially the “deplorables”.

IG: “we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision [to prioritize the Russia investigation over the email investigation] was free from bias.”

The more I learn of details in the IG report the more I am convinced of the FBI's unrelenting efforts and superheroic methods it employed to ensure that Hillary in no way, shape, or form would ever be charged.

Disgusting.

The details are deep there pertaining to literally having more than a number of people close to the 'server' fundamentally telling untruths to the agents, literally changing their stories to them over the course of time. Not just the untruth issues, but then in the end giving first hand detailing of how fked up Clinton ran the server -- literally with techs being unsupervised and w/o clearance dealing hands on with known classified material.

And the agents texting amongst themselves how no one will ever be charged during this.

And about fing time that someone actually brought up the issue of Cheryl Mills, a focal point in the investigation and fact witness, being allowed to play as 'counselor' and being allowed to 'represent' Hillary all the while being a central fact witness. Jeezus....

Quote:"the decision to allow the Clinton interview to proceed in the presence of two fact witnesses, who also were serving as Clinton's counsel, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment."

I wonder if Papadapolous and all the rest of the 'collusion' 4 are reading with envy how the FBI and DOJ studiously ignored blatant 'process crimes' during the course of the investigation.

I just sincerely wish just fing 10% of the urgency and impetus in the present 'collusion' investigation had been undertaken in the server matter......

(06-15-2018 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The more I learn of details in the IG report the more I am convinced of the FBI's unrelenting efforts and superheroic methods it employed to ensure that Hillary in no way, shape, or form would ever be charged.
Disgusting.
The details are deep there pertaining to literally having more than a number of people close to the 'server' fundamentally telling untruths to the agents, literally changing their stories to them over the course of time. Not just the untruth issues, but then in the end giving first hand detailing of how fked up Clinton ran the server -- literally with techs being unsupervised and w/o clearance dealing hands on with known classified material.
And the agents texting amongst themselves how no one will ever be charged during this.
And about fing time that someone actually brought up the issue of Cheryl Mills, a focal point in the investigation and fact witness, being allowed to play as 'counselor' and being allowed to 'represent' Hillary all the while being a central fact witness. Jeezus....

Quote:"the decision to allow the Clinton interview to proceed in the presence of two fact witnesses, who also were serving as Clinton's counsel, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment."

I wonder if Papadapolous and all the rest of the 'collusion' 4 are reading with envy how the FBI and DOJ studiously ignored blatant 'process crimes' during the course of the investigation.
I just sincerely wish just fing 10% of the urgency and impetus in the present 'collusion' investigation had been undertaken in the server matter......

Pretty typical for this kind of report. The executive summary whitewashes, but if you get down into the details you find some very troubling stuff.

(06-15-2018 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The more I learn of details in the IG report the more I am convinced of the FBI's unrelenting efforts and superheroic methods it employed to ensure that Hillary in no way, shape, or form would ever be charged.
Disgusting.
The details are deep there pertaining to literally having more than a number of people close to the 'server' fundamentally telling untruths to the agents, literally changing their stories to them over the course of time. Not just the untruth issues, but then in the end giving first hand detailing of how fked up Clinton ran the server -- literally with techs being unsupervised and w/o clearance dealing hands on with known classified material.
And the agents texting amongst themselves how no one will ever be charged during this.
And about fing time that someone actually brought up the issue of Cheryl Mills, a focal point in the investigation and fact witness, being allowed to play as 'counselor' and being allowed to 'represent' Hillary all the while being a central fact witness. Jeezus....

Quote:"the decision to allow the Clinton interview to proceed in the presence of two fact witnesses, who also were serving as Clinton's counsel, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment."

I wonder if Papadapolous and all the rest of the 'collusion' 4 are reading with envy how the FBI and DOJ studiously ignored blatant 'process crimes' during the course of the investigation.
I just sincerely wish just fing 10% of the urgency and impetus in the present 'collusion' investigation had been undertaken in the server matter......

Pretty typical for this kind of report. The executive summary whitewashes, but if you get down into the details you find some very troubling stuff.

Well, I did it again. I, a known Trump supporter, have spoken to a Russian. We talked for several minutes, and even rode an elevator together. How suspicious. Smoke, smoke, smoke.

There is every possibility his sister’s dog walker knows a man who works for an oligarch, or for the state. Highly suspicious.

I am e petting the FBI to pull me in and question me thoroughly about m
Y part in the collusion. If fail to be consistent in my answers, they will charge me with lying to the FBI. My indictment will be more proof that the collusion is in play, and I participated, right?

I’m going to keep making fun of you conspiracy theorists until collusion is proven, in other words, forever.

I’m going to keep making fun of you conspiracy theorists until collusion is proven, in other words, forever.

Gowdy

Seems like the corrupt organization interfering in our elections was the FBI.

Strzok

Have you read about the prosecution of the Russian companies?

I relayed some information here awhile how the Feds were flabbergasted that one of the named companies answered. And petitioned the court to keep them from actually making a plea of not guilty; it was theorized that the company would have the temerity to require disclosure from the the prosecutors *and* request an expedited trial, that seemed to be the only reason that the Feds would try and block someone actually 'answering'.

During the course of that iteration, it seems that one of the defendant companies wasnt even in existence at the time of the alleged actions.

That background here:
https://spectator.org/robert-muellers-ga...ted-wound/

So now, after all that fun, the DOJ is stonewalling the absolute hell out of discovery requests for the company that did answer. In short, they have not turned over any substantive discovery and are asking the court for massive layers of protective orders for this.

Someone posted the defendant's filing on Reddit here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comm...urt_today/

Pass the popcorn on this one.

Just part of the witch hunt.

Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

First time I have ever seen someone throw a tantrum, slam the door, and leave without the issue given as the reason even being discussed in this forum.

I guess if one doesnt raise an issue here in a way that pleases you, or if one doesnt think exactly as you do, then by (your) definition they are a racist fk with whom you do not want to have anything to do with. Have fun, my friend.

(06-20-2018 04:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

Was it because I used the words "witch hunt"?

Maybe I can get an answer here. What do you think our immigration policies should be?

If you can, answer in in the positive mode - it should be this and this and this.

Also, I don't know of any hateful and/or racist things being said. Could you give some examples and/or links?

(06-20-2018 04:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

Horrific? Hateful? Racist? Monster?

Coming a little unglued, are you? Can you no longer discuss issues without resorting to hysteria and hyperbole? Come to think of it, could you ever?

(06-20-2018 04:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

Horrific? Hateful? Racist? Monster?

Coming a little unglued, are you? Can you no longer discuss issues without resorting to hysteria and hyperbole? Come to think of it, could you ever?