(12-29-2017 05:54 PM)450bench Wrote:  We are literally seeing the left throw shat against the wall. Problem for them is that none of it sticks.

Heck, they're not even hitting the wall. It's smacking down on their shiny white shoes.

(12-29-2017 05:54 PM)450bench Wrote:  We are literally seeing the left throw shat against the wall. Problem for them is that none of it sticks.

It is rather hilarious. They have been doing it since the election.

(12-29-2017 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 05:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There’s nothing to be called out on.

I think you dolts just like saying dossier because it sounds mysterious.

I guess Strzok didnt get canned. I guess Comey didnt get canned. I guess McCabe 'retiring' is just coincidence. I guess the FBI General Counsel being 'retired in a lateral move' is also just coincidence.

But bad form to call out the stories that seem to link all four of these people. And their spouses. Got it..... double bad for Trump to state the fact that the FBI went balls deep politically.

But please whine some more Mensa.

1. Strzok was removed from the case once his texts were discovered. That being said, there is absolutely nothing saying an agent has to be apolitical. Trump's attorney, Ty Cobb, donated money on several occassions to Hillary Clinton.
2. Trump firing Comey is why there is a special counsel, in the first place.
3. McCabe should have stayed on, but I'm sure he announced his retirement to take any focus off of him.


That being said, I'd rather be on the defensive side of a man with the integrity of Robert Mueller than trying to defend a charlatan like Donald Trump.

Post their resumes of service side by side... I'm sorry but questioning Mueller's integrity while defending a habitual liar like Trump is beyond sane, yet thats politics.

All that being said, Mueller may determine there's nothing there... but I know I'll trust his findings once he reaches them.

Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

(12-29-2017 06:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 05:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There’s nothing to be called out on.

I think you dolts just like saying dossier because it sounds mysterious.

I guess Strzok didnt get canned. I guess Comey didnt get canned. I guess McCabe 'retiring' is just coincidence. I guess the FBI General Counsel being 'retired in a lateral move' is also just coincidence.

But bad form to call out the stories that seem to link all four of these people. And their spouses. Got it..... double bad for Trump to state the fact that the FBI went balls deep politically.

But please whine some more Mensa.

1. Strzok was removed from the case once his texts were discovered. That being said, there is absolutely nothing saying an agent has to be apolitical. Trump's attorney, Ty Cobb, donated money on several occassions to Hillary Clinton.
2. Trump firing Comey is why there is a special counsel, in the first place.
3. McCabe should have stayed on, but I'm sure he announced his retirement to take any focus off of him.


That being said, I'd rather be on the defensive side of a man with the integrity of Robert Mueller than trying to defend a charlatan like Donald Trump.

Post their resumes of service side by side... I'm sorry but questioning Mueller's integrity while defending a habitual liar like Trump is beyond sane, yet thats politics.

All that being said, Mueller may determine there's nothing there... but I know I'll trust his findings once he reaches them.

Another strawman. I guess asking 'where is the collusion' is now *defending* Trump. So asking for evidence of your witch hunt is now "defending". Got it....

As for 2, that is incorrect. Perhaps you should actually read the documents setting up the Special Counsel and the authority granted. Nowhere does it read "because Comey was fired". I read the term "to investigate Russia" or somefink. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass to suit your reason du jour.

But, please conflate *everything* with *everything* else. You seem to excel at that obfuscation.

As for 3, if McCabe did nothing wrong, no reason to retire. But lets look at his actions in place below.

And you utterly ignore the General Counsel being 'retired in place'.

So lets look at the FBI scorecard:

Agent in charge of the Hillary whitewash and deeply involved with the Trump Special Counsel investigation not just makes biased emails, but shines a light into the generation of an "insurance policy" on the election.

McCabe, is identified as the person in whoms office Strzoh makes the comments about the insurance policy in. McCabe and Strzoh are both identified as editing Comey's comments about Hillary's email and changing the language in the original from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless". It just so happens that a portion of the US Code that identifies charges of mishandling classified information just happens to have the actions described as being illegal when done in a "grossly negligent" manner.

Comey, who assigned Strzoh to the whitewashed Clinton investigation and later to the Trump investigation himself leaks FBI information after he is canned to make himself smell better.

And strangely enough, the General Counsel, who is now known to be a subject of an investigation by the FBI Inspector General, doesnt retire, but is 'transferred' to the effective version of FBI legal Siberia.

So how do those resumes look to you Mensa? Something you are proud of?

The top of the FBI leadership planted themselves fing neck deep in political activity. But Trump is a 'bad boy' for having the temerity to call the crap described out. Love that view there, Mensa......

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

Somehow Comey and Strzok did that for Hillary. Or did you forget that already?

Mensa???

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

At this point, I don’t.

Quote:A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

That is true.

But when virtually every key member of the investigation team has expressed extremely biased opinions in recorded statements, that should give one pause to question the very real possibility of a witch hunt. What do you think Strzok meant by “insurance policy”?

(12-29-2017 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

At this point, I don’t.

Quote:A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

That is true.

But when virtually every key member of the investigation team has expressed extremely biased opinions in recorded statements, that should give one pause to question the very real possibility of a witch hunt. What do you think Strzok meant by “insurance policy”?

Because it’s politically expedient for you not to trust him, and because the only leg it appears the Trump team can stand upon is to discredit Robert Mueller and law enforcement.

(12-29-2017 09:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

At this point, I don’t.

Quote:A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

That is true.

But when virtually every key member of the investigation team has expressed extremely biased opinions in recorded statements, that should give one pause to question the very real possibility of a witch hunt. What do you think Strzok meant by “insurance policy”?

Because it’s politically expedient for you not to trust him, and because the only leg it appears the Trump team can stand upon is to discredit Robert Mueller and law enforcement.

Muehller did it to himself. He either actively recruited extremely biased members to join his team, or he was incompetent on how to vet members of his team. Fortunately, Horowitz appears up to the task.

(12-29-2017 09:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

At this point, I don’t.

Quote:A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

That is true.

But when virtually every key member of the investigation team has expressed extremely biased opinions in recorded statements, that should give one pause to question the very real possibility of a witch hunt. What do you think Strzok meant by “insurance policy”?

Because it’s politically expedient for you not to trust him, and because the only leg it appears the Trump team can stand upon is to discredit Robert Mueller and law enforcement.

Muehller did it to himself. He either actively recruited extremely biased members to join his team, or he was incompetent on how to vet members of his team. Fortunately, Horowitz appears up to the task.

Right.

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

His actions with the congressional hearings with Ashcroft and Comey leave lots of room to question his objectivity and professionalism.

(12-29-2017 09:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 06:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mensa, why was Strzok removed for Texans/emails when others with similar texts/emails were not. He was not the only one making such statements.

And no they don’t have to be apolitical, but when a number of them have known biases, and all in the same direction, does that not at least raise questions about the process. If there were a court trial involving Trump and those folks were in the jury pool, they would all get struck for cause. Should people who would be disqualified from a jury for bias be conducting such an investigation?

I have no idea, nor do you; but I trust Robert Mueller to do his job.

A team of investigators is not a jury pool. They're charged with determining if there is a case, not determining guilt or innocence.

His actions with the congressional hearings with Ashcroft and Comey leave lots of room to question his objectivity and professionalism.

Explain

It's difficult for your morale to be negatively impacted by politicians and their political criticisms if you keep the politics out of your job as your instructed to.

(12-29-2017 10:16 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  It's difficult for your morale to be negatively impacted by politicians and their political criticisms if you keep the politics out of your job as your instructed to.

^^^^a thread ender

(12-29-2017 10:16 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  It's difficult for your morale to be negatively impacted by politicians and their political criticisms if you keep the politics out of your job as your instructed to.

(12-29-2017 02:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Hill

Trump's criticism of the FBI is reportedly damaging morale among agents in the bureau, current and former FBI officials told The New York Times.

The agency's new director is also reportedly under pressure to remove people whom he perceives as loyal to former Director James Comey.


NY Times

But nearly five months since Mr. Wray started the job, Mr. Trump has not made Mr. Wray’s life easier as he seeks to restore the public’s confidence in the country’s premier law enforcement agency — one that the president says is in “Tatters.”

Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults have put Mr. Wray and his leadership team in a difficult position. Mr. Wray is trying to move past his predecessor’s era and make sure there is not a whiff of politics at the F.B.I. He has promised the F.B.I.’s work would be based on the “facts, the law and the impartial pursuit of justice — period.”


Yet Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress are making that task much harder.

Current and former F.B.I. officials say Mr. Trump’s criticisms, and those of normally supportive Republican members of Congress, have damaged morale in some quarters of the bureau. Senior agents have expressed fear that if their names appear in the news media, they will be singled out for attack by politicians.

Whats hurting FBI moral is all the Obamabots that have turned a legendary crime investigation organization into modern political gestapo and a national embarrassment.

(12-29-2017 09:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because it’s politically expedient for you not to trust him, and because the only leg it appears the Trump team can stand upon is to discredit Robert Mueller and law enforcement.

Politically expedient? How?

What you seem to be ignoring is that I don't like Trump. I disagree with him on his hot button issues--immigration and free trade. I did not vote for him because I disagreed with him on his key issues.

But the last year has made me more inclined to vote for him in 2020 just because I am so turned off by both democrats snd establishment republicans.

As for Mueller, he and Comey are both Washington insider bureaucrats. And that is the single class of people that I distrust more than any other in the world.

As for any leg the Trump team has to stand on, against what? So far, what factors have emerged to suggest that any of the wild story being spun by democrats is true. I mean, the whole story is simply unbelievable.

(12-29-2017 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Because it’s politically expedient for you not to trust him, and because the only leg it appears the Trump team can stand upon is to discredit Robert Mueller and law enforcement.

Politically expedient? How?

What you seem to be ignoring is that I don't like Trump. I disagree with him on his hot button issues--immigration and free trade. I did not vote for him because I disagreed with him on his key issues.

But the last year has made me more inclined to vote for him in 2020 just because I am so turned off by both democrats snd establishment republicans.

As for Mueller, he and Comey are both Washington insider bureaucrats. And that is the single class of people that I distrust more than any other in the world.

As for any leg the Trump team has to stand on, against what? So far, what factors have emerged to suggest that any of the wild story being spun by democrats is true. I mean, the whole story is simply unbelievable.

you cleaverly make a living off of steadfastly supporting Republicans while proclaiming independence. its been your schtick for years.

As for DJT, he is a proven, habitual liar. He lies when the truth would do. Hitch your wagon to him if you like, but a liar is a liar is a liar.

Not sure why you consider it unbeliveable for a longshot candidate without an ounce of moral fiber to accept help from a willing adversary. That adversary clearly orchastrated an organized campaign to impact the outcome of the election. They clearly had numerous meetings with the Trump team and there is clearly enough information to warrant a special counsel. This isn't a story being spun by Democrats because Democrats, as the minority party and not in the White House, could never have appointed a special counsel to investigate the allegations. Republicans acknowledged the alarming intelligence collected by the FBI, CIA and NSA and demanded an impartial investigation; and they appointed a fellow Republican to serve as special counsel.