ADVERTISEMENT

Trump gets his Master

What is McCabe’s “corruption?”

You so far have come up with one line of one email from a (then) 36 year old non-managerial, non-agent, non-executive lawyer and his misdemeanor plea.

So, FWIW, another “tell” from you. You really think this is “jousting?” My entire posting history has been to tell you the truth, not to “joust.”

Now back to your standard— not your “you mean to tell me?” crap. That’s NOT evidence of high-level executive corruption. That is (now THIS is my opinion) middle school playground logic.

Sorry to be harsh, but that’s the truth.

You are talking in circles while offering nothing new. Because you cannot. Because it doesn’t exist.

So I’m done here.
Are you pretending to get mad because you don't want to answer the question, Do you consider the IG report to be proof...?

There are many reasons you would not want to answer that question. Here is one re McCabe.

 
Are you pretending to get mad because you don't want to answer the question, Do you consider the IG report to be proof...?

There are many reasons you would not want to answer that question. Here is one re McCabe.


So, for the second time you tried to come up with an example and have proved my point.

Did you bother to read the article you attached? The DOJ OIG (an outstanding and imperfect agency too) found that McCabe didn't tell/misled his boss (Comey) that McCabe had spoken about four times on the downlow to the Wall Street Journal confirming the status of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The report also stated that his approval of "disclosures to the media was within his power, but was a policy violation because it was done in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership." Not good for McCabe, but THAT's the best you can now find about FBI corruption? Nothing to do with operations or integrity of evidence. Nothing.

You got back on point by trying to come up with some, with any example of "high-level executive corruption" (again, your exact words) and so far the entirety of what you found has been:
  1. One line of one email from a (then) 36 year old non-managerial, non-agent, non-executive lawyer and his misdemeanor plea, and
  2. An executive who didn't tell/misled his boss that he had spoken on the downlow to the Wall Street Journal confirming the status of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
That's in an Agency of over 20,000 employees with hundreds of high-level executives and with a constant spotlight on them. One example of bad judgment and a misdemeanor by a non-manager, non-executive.

Let's exhaust your examples -- is that it?
 
So, for the second time you tried to come up with an example and have proved my point.

  1. One line of one email from a (then) 36 year old non-managerial, non-agent, non-executive lawyer and his misdemeanor plea, and
  2. An executive who didn't tell/misled his boss that he had spoken on the downlow to the Wall Street Journal confirming the status of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
That's in an Agency of over 20,000 employees with hundreds of high-level executives and with a constant spotlight on them. One example of bad judgment and a misdemeanor by a non-manager, non-executive.

Let's exhaust your examples -- is that it?
1. FBI lawyer, with a history of anti-Trump tweets, admitted he deliberately doctored an email that was used in an internal campaign to bring down Trump. You don't consider that FBI corruption? You wouldn't fire a lawyer in your firm, if you have one, for that type of unethical behavior?

2. FBI deputy director lied under oath. Maybe not corruption to you (although I hope that is not really the case), but it was to the DOJ when they were entrapping Mike Flynn and no doubt others.

Sorry, JM, but your spinning is not very good despite the considerable experience you must have as an IU fan.

You are down 2-0. More to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
1. FBI lawyer, with a history of anti-Trump tweets, admitted he deliberately doctored an email that was used in an internal campaign to bring down Trump. You don't consider that FBI corruption? You wouldn't fire a lawyer in your firm, if you have one, for that type of unethical behavior?

2. FBI deputy director lied under oath. Maybe not corruption to you (although I hope that is not really the case), but it was to the DOJ when they were entrapping Mike Flynn and no doubt others.

Sorry, JM, but your spinning is not very good despite the considerable experience you must have as an IU fan.

You are down 2-0. More to come.
Cute.

You aren’t fooling anyone by starting a sentence with a fact and then adding your opinion to the end of the sentence.

For instance:

For Clinesmith? A junior lawyer that supervised no one and screwed up. Took his misdemeanor hit. Where in the heck did you come up with “used in an internal campaign to bring down Trump”? That’s a doozy and is purely you, not factual.

McCabe? No charges for lying under oath (that’s the criminal charge that Flynn pled guilty to). The OIG, an admin agency said he lied to his boss about talking to the press, and wouldn’t admit it to the OIG under oath.
1) That’s not good.
2) That’s the worst you have about a 20,000 person “tip of the spear” agency?

That’s pretty freaking admirable that is all there is. There’s so much room for human error and misconduct at an agency that big with so much responsibility.

Now stop denigrating law enforcement for an extremely small number of people who made bad, de minimus decisions. It’s disgusting.

You should be ashamed for this kind of anti-law enforcement broad brush tarring. EVERY very large organization has people that act inappropriately. You can only come up with chicken sh!t and it’s like you are desperately trying to find anti-law enforcement examples and play them into far more than they are.

How do you feel about the DEA, or the NYPD or Indianapolis PD? If a misdemeanor or admin report has you hating the FBI this much, I can only imagine how much you hate those outstanding agencies.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Riveting-
Cute.

You aren’t fooling anyone by starting a sentence with a fact and then adding your opinion to the end of the sentence.

For instance:

For Clinesmith? A junior lawyer that supervised no one and screwed up. Took his misdemeanor hit. Where in the heck did you come up with “used in an internal campaign to bring down Trump”? That’s a doozy and is purely you, not factual.

McCabe? No charges for lying under oath (that’s the criminal charge that Flynn pled guilty to). The OIG, an admin agency said he lied to his boss about talking to the press, and wouldn’t admit it to the OIG under oath.
1) That’s not good.
2) That’s the worst you have about a 20,000 person “tip of the spear” agency?

That’s pretty freaking admirable that is all there is. There’s so much room for human error and misconduct at an agency that big with so much responsibility.

Now stop denigrating law enforcement for an extremely small number of people who made bad, de minimus decisions. It’s disgusting.

You should be ashamed for this kind of anti-law enforcement broad brush tarring. EVERY very large organization has people that act inappropriately. You can only come up with chicken sh!t and it’s like you are desperately trying to find anti-law enforcement examples and play them into far more than they are.

How do you feel about the DEA, or the NYPD or Indianapolis PD? If a misdemeanor or admin report has you hating the FBI this much, I can only imagine how much you hate those outstanding agencies.
You still haven't commented about my question to you regarding the integrity of the DOJ continuing to dribble info about the fruits of the raid potentially contaminating any prospective jury pool. Is their intent to actually bring charges or just smear the former President with no intention to ever bring charges?
 
You still haven't commented about my question to you regarding the integrity of the DOJ continuing to dribble info about the fruits of the raid potentially contaminating any prospective jury pool. Is their intent to actually bring charges or just smear the former President with no intention to ever bring charges?
Sorry about that. I may be wrong here, but hasn’t the information come out in court filings and responses?

But, If there are news articles that are anonymously sourced by current DOJ employees that would be a problem for me (though depending on the information that is allowed). That remains to be seen. There are multiple ways those articles could have been sourced.
 
Last edited:
Well now we have proof he actually knew how to do it, so he can't claim ignorance when he is pressed on all this other stuff that's not related to Crossfire Hurricane. Cuz, you know, that memorandum covered one binder, and we know that they found multiple sources and hundreds of pages of classified materials... so yeah, that probably ain't covering all of it, bud. 😆

And you think his lawyers wouldn't have already submitted that if it was that easy? How dumb do you think everyone is? Meanwhile, his lawyers aren't contending in court that everything is declassified, just Trump saying it on TV. I wonder why?

Because they'll be found in contempt and disbarred if they knowingly lie in open court, that's why.
 
Well now we have proof he actually knew how to do it, so he can't claim ignorance when he is pressed on all this other stuff that's not related to Crossfire Hurricane. Cuz, you know, that memorandum covered one binder, and we know that they found multiple sources and hundreds of pages of classified materials... so yeah, that probably ain't covering all of it, bud. 😆

And you think his lawyers wouldn't have already submitted that if it was that easy? How dumb do you think everyone is? Meanwhile, his lawyers aren't contending in court that everything is declassified, just Trump saying it on TV. I wonder why?

Because they'll be found in contempt and disbarred if they knowingly lie in open court, that's why.
That’s why the experienced lawyers in this matter turned him down. They know it’s a crap show.
 
There’s a decent chance Trump’s lawyers withdraw the SM request now.

With the classified (or once marked as classified) documents now removed from the SM process and Dearie basically making them come forward with specifics about what they want to contest (that may limit his options later), there’s not a lot of value in having the SM now (and trump has to pay for it).
 
There’s a decent chance Trump’s lawyers withdraw the SM request now.

With the classified (or once marked as classified) documents now removed from the SM process and Dearie basically making them come forward with specifics about what they want to contest (that may limit his options later), there’s not a lot of value in having the SM now (and trump has to pay for it).
Yeah, it doesn’t even stall things anymore. It’s just an admin drill at this point.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT