Being skeptical of government is healthy. However, my take on the FBI in the last five years is that their senior leadership under Comey massively overshared, not that the opening of investigations was misguided or politicized. The FBI is the primary investigative agency for public corruption; anytime those cases happen the subjects potentially will accuse them of 'politicizing.' It's the way it's always been.
I don’t disagree that we should all be skeptical of what we see and hear about these investigations, however, let’s also keep in mind that Trump appointed Wray and served Trump for more than 2 years as the head of the FBI. I don’t believe Wray was in the FBI for any of the stuff that you are talking about. To Hoosier’s point … he very well seems to have learned a lesson from Comey’s mistakes.
That’s fair. Maybe I should have said the last 10 years to encompass the Comey admin. I’ll just describe it as some unsavory investigative techniques during the last 5 years.
But what you don't point out is you think the FBI/DOJ are partisan organizations......and that trump had been unfairly targeted.
Fair points
I absolutely think certain actors within the fbi/doj are partisan hacks, and if I insinuated otherwise, that was not my intent. I also think the entire Russian Collusion Hoax was just that, a partisan hoax. I mean the fbi fabricated evidence to obtain fisa warrants; what do you call that? An oversight?
The request to unseal the affidavit came from Judicial Watch and multiple media outlets. The judge gave both sides (DOJ and Trump) until this past Monday to either object or support the request. Everyone knew the DOJ would object, but Trump had a right to support the motion to unseal .. and they did not.
Trump's lawyers (at the least the ones that have been in public) are incredibly, shockingly, inexperienced.
That is my understanding of events as well. My experience has always been that by not objecting, you’re approving of the release, whether that approval is voiced or not.
It’s kind of a replay of the election lawsuits. Trump sent Giuliani to plead a lot of his cases (most notably in PA) … to my knowledge Rudy hasn’t actually been the lawyer of record in case since the 90s and i don’t think ever practiced anything related to election law (and it was obvious in the hearings). There are plenty of firms who specialize in this stuff.
At least Christina is easier to look at than Rudy
Usually, but not always.
Laura Ingraham was questioning whether they may have waived their right to be involved in the redacting process by not filing a motion (either to support or object) to the un-sealing request.
Not trying to stereotype here, but they have more than a law degree in common. Not unusual for Trump.
I call that certain actors, just as you said.
I think Judicial Watch motioned to intervene, which if approved by the court makes them an actual party to the case. I’m curious what their legal basis was
Not sure how or why they’d intervene and be a party to the case. They just filed to unseal the warrant and affidavit.
First, it apparently was not that secure from videos from the cameras focused on the safe and the room.
Witty. Yet, as dumb as you think I am, I never reference anything that comes from a website that also advertises people losing their noses due to monkey pox or any other stupid shit they happened to make up that minute.
Never thought you were dumb. Just wish you could have a conversation or dialogue without talking down to people and going to insults whenever you’re challenged. You have a lot of good takes but you’ve also been wrong about plenty of things over the last few years so stop acting like you're intellectually superior to everyone, cause you aren’t.
Now I know that you have over 140 years of Top Secret Squirrel Level 5 Clearance and access to the secret Stone Cutter's Meeting with Homer, but let's go to the tape:
Not to distract from what you clearly feel is a terrific dunk on gr8 but he even bolded the word "marked" in his post...
Not sure why somebody with over 175 years of top level security clearance and has level 9 access to the Illuminati needs a defender but she had top secret information on her server. not just a couple of classified emails. Do i need to reference the posts about Trump being worse because there was top secret material with Trump? She had top secret material on a private unsecured server and transmitted it. And god knows what was on the 13 blackberries and 5 IPads destroyed despite an ordered hold. Every email she sent classified or not was a violation of the law. She wasn't even fined. While at the same time a sailor was in jail for sending his mom a picture of himself in front of a sub. She didn't get off because there was no evidence. She got off because the FBI/DOJ inserted "intent" into the Criminal Code where it did not exist. I think a read of IG Horowitz report on the matter would valuable for some people.
How much whiskey have you had tonight? The point about the emails was that very few were MARKED classified. Several were deemded classified after the fact as they should have been but they were not at the time. Most of the rest of your post is, quite frankly, conspiracy theory bs. Also, this was made a felony by your lord and savior, so maybe you should blame him for his current situation.
To my point on the quality of legal counsel being critical, on Ingraham Thursday night Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb states that for these classified documents it was very secure because only certain members of Mar A Lago staff could get down there.
Yeah, I don't get were it was ever determined that the results of the investigation concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.
www.cbsnews.com
Agreed.Yeah, I don't get were it was ever determined that the results of the investigation concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.
The bipartisan senate report found many contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and evidence of Russian interference as did the Mueller report.
Senate Intelligence Committee releases final report on 2016 Russian interference
The fifth and final chapter spans nearly 1,000 pages and deals with counterintelligence concerns.
Was a crime committed by Trump himself other than possibly obstruction? I'll go along with the Mueller investigation and the Senate Report and conclude it couldn't be proven but its not like there was nothing to it.
thehill.com
I actually do believe I’m intellectually superior to many of the dumbasses I have on ignore here. I don’t apologize for that. Some of these guys hold opinions so ill informed as to be comical and have demonstrated sheer idiocy and unwillingness to engage in honest, reasoned debate. Yeah, I’ll look down on those people. No apologies.
My response to this shit remains the same: Both are wrong. Condemn them BOTH, or shut the **** up.
Lol ok.
This comes from a Maggie Haberman article in NYT so it's a bunch of half truths at the very least if not completely made up.
It could be if Trump/his administration had worked to make it/a section of it into a SCIF. There’s is no evidence that this has ever been done.
And most certainly without question it would not remain a SCIF during his post presidency.
The same Maggie Haberman who is one of the preferred reporters given regular personal access by and to Donald Trump?
