What part are you surprised by?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Printable View
What part are you surprised by?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Didn't you read my post about the FISA Court saying it was a huge abuse of power by the Obama administration spying on people with the use of certain intelligence sources. Susan Rice has already admitted unmasking people in Trump's administration. Obama and Susan Rice and Brennan are going to jail. Muellar is not going to like this at all. This could be the biggest abuse of power in our country's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I was dizzy after reading it. I had read almost exactly what you posted before, but laughed it off. You are implying that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
-Putin was afraid of Clinton and rigged the election by planting doubt in the mind of union voters in states Hillary never campained in. He also somehow persuaded blacks to not vote.
-Because he feels better about going up against a guy who would appoint real military guys to his staff, but feared Hillary's known record of hard line defense tactics.:laugh:
You need to stop reading WND. The FISA Court didn't say that because it had to approve any search warrant. Susan Rice had every reason to unmask certain individuals and there was nothing illegal about it. Muellar isn't even going to look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I'll try but you are slippier than a greased pig in a mud hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
I read the FISA court opinion. It said nothing about Trump or any spying on him. It also did not implicate high level government officials, but said that some agents improperly ran searches on "upstream collections" obtained through internet service providers. In other words - some agents violated rights of American citizens by looking at internet data that ISPs collected on them. While that is troubling, it doesn't remotely suggest the link that WND et al are making to Trump's claim that he was surveilled by Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Do you disagree with any of the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
1. HRC campaigned on a no-fly zone in Syria
2. Trump said during the campaign that we should not get involved with Syria
3. That the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of the hacked records
4. That the information that came out was negative for HRC
5. That Flynn was one of the first military brass to cast his support behind Trump during the campaign
6. That Flynn had a friendly relationship with Russia.
Because I have tons of evidence for each of these points, and I just need to understand where you got lost.
Obama guaranteed that Trump would never be president. In my 70 years here on earth, I have never heard a sitting president go out and say he would guarantee that someone would not be president. This is Obama's arrogance speaking. Obama never saw himself as president, he saw himself as the king. He knew he could get away with doing anything he wanted to because the crooked press loved him and wouldn't say a thing. He also used the racist line a lot if somebody was critical of him and the press would jump right in there with him. He spied on Trump because he thought he could get away with it. One problem, he didn't expect Trump to fire his man, Comey. He thought since Comey protected Hillary and Hillary was going to win and he wouldn't have to worry about getting caught with his spying. Trump threw another monkey wrench in his plans by winning.
Trump has a friendly insider in one of those intelligence agencies that told him about the spying. He wouldn't have tweeted that without a good source. The spying by Obama is a much bigger crime than the Russians hacking the DNC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
He didn't "guarantee" it. I already posted the quote with the context - and it essentially stated that Americans would never vote for him because he was not a serious about the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
He didn't remotely suggest that he was going to do something to prevent Trump from winning.
I'm not lost. I'm about logic. Your liberal script of Trump hate will never sell the fact that Russia was not more in bed with Hillary and Bill than they were with Trump.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=0
FWIW, when/if we find out who was feeding Wikileaks we will know who was behind trying to help destroy Hillary. Schultz was the first casualty of Wikileaks. How did Russia play into that one? Were they pissed that Bernie was getting screwed?
He tweets lots of things without a good source. That is his pattern. And then when people call him on it - he says he was just reporting what some people are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Of course...unless it comes from anonymous sources it is not credible. Did the Times or the other liberal reporting organizations ever retract?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Don't know - I have used up my free views of NYT for the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
How do you know there was nothing illegal about it? Another assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You know what they say about the fittest.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Not an assumption at all. She is the National Security Advisor to the POTUS so she had the authority to request the unmasking of US citizens in foreign wiretap intercepts. What you are implying is that she did so for non-governmental purposes. That would be unethical but not illegal. See the distinction?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
You still don't get the point. What you say is true based on what you know...but you don't have all the information. You assume that you do. That is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What evidence is there that something illegal was done? Nada.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Again, there is none to my knowledge. But you can't say definitively either way. Because we don't know for sure. But some people will go ahead and draw conclusions and condemn a person without all the information, while in other cases, look away when the same or similar circumstances apply to another individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Are you sensing a pattern yet?
The pattern is that Trump's claims are not supported by any evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Must be the lawyer in you to not use any work-arounds. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Come on Guiss, you're starting to fall behind like Salty. Read this one slowly. You'll like it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just because you don't have or see evidence of it, doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.
See why you shouldn't pre-judge stuff?
Furthermore...seems like I recall IC officials stating there is no evidence of Trump collision with Russia. Did I dream that? Even some Democrats have stated there is no evidence.
Had the IC said that? And, even if, what about Trump's very public request for Russia to further discredit HRC? Not illegal - but it isn't that one of the reasons he finds himself in this quagmire?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Despite the uproar from the left, he asked them to release stuff they already had. Not attempt to do new stuff. And so what? They have it, maybe. If so, use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
He's only in this quagmire because of the overly concentrated effort to discredit him at all cost.
Oh, I see, Putin fell for politicians' campaign promises! What a maroon!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
We have installed or propped up foreign heads of state that we later regretted - not that I think Puti regrets the outcome. Trump's lack of impulse control and need to claims a "win" is so reliable, Putin can play him like a puppet. Plus, he loves Trump's alternate facts and attacks on MSM - it makes Putin's misinformation campains more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Do you believe that any positive skills Trump possesses in leadership and/or negotiation is offset by by what you believe to be his narcissistic personality disorder?
Let's take a trip down memory lane;Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
http://observer.com/2017/01/donald-t...-spy-alliance/
"Unfortunately, newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump is threatening the whole Western intelligence system with his brusque comments about our spies and worrisome ties to Moscow. For the first time, an American president is causing our allies and partners to wonder if Washington can still be trusted.
As I’ve explained, Trump’s aggressive comments about American spies—mocking them and comparing them to Nazis on Twitter, for example—have generated unprecedented enmity in our Intelligence Community. Going to war with the IC is a bad idea for any new administration, particularly given the new commander-in-chief’s rumored links to Vladimir Putin, which are keeping American spies up at night.
It’s not just Washington that’s worried. Throughout the Western spy alliance, intelligence agencies are pondering the previously unthinkable: Is the American president compromised? On several occasions over the decades, the IC had to reduce spy-links, usually only temporarily, to various partners when a new government contained too many cabinet ministers with Moscow linkages. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it’s the American government that seems to have a Kremlin problem."
https://www.google.com/amp/observer....n-embassy/amp/
"Our Intelligence Community is so worried by the unprecedented problems of the Trump administration—not only do senior officials possess troubling ties to the Kremlin, there are nagging questions about basic competence regarding Team Trump—that it is beginning to withhold intelligence from a White House which our spies do not trust.
That the IC has ample grounds for concern is demonstrated by almost daily revelations of major problems inside the White House, a mere three weeks after the inauguration. The president has repeatedly gone out of his way to antagonize our spies, mocking them and demeaning their work, and Trump’s personal national security guru can’t seem to keep his story straight on vital issues."
Plus, there was that other article, I linked that cited non-anonymous ranking intelligence officials talking about Trump's lack of respect with the CIA. We are also now seeing that Kushner and Flynn tried to backchannel the Russians to avoid detection of the IC - another fact that surely gave them reason not to trust Trump.
What you are seeing is a normally functional organization showing signs of dysfunction due to lack of trust with their "leader." Some folks on here have mistaken my making this point with the idea that I support the leaks. I don't necessarily. It sucks that our IC is acting in ways that jeopardize its reputation. But on one hand - without them leaking this stuff, we might never learn about it, and if it is true, we do need to know. I am not calling them heroes, but I think you are doing a misservice to the quality of information that is coming out if you think Trump is being targeted unfairly because these are just a bunch of liberal HRC supporters.
Yes, what I have seen is an alpha-male pattern where he lets everyone know that he is the biggest swinging penis in the room and when that doesn't work he uses charm to make people feel special. That can work with some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
But his lack of self-control/impulsiveness, his need for admiration, his inability to handle criticism - those are negative traits in a leader, especially this job.
Furthermore, when you see those patterns with someone that has an outward grandiose sense about himself - ultraconfidence - what that tells me is that he has a fragile self esteem. He predictably acts with bluster and dominance when challenged. That doesn't serve him well, because that is usually when he tells his most blatant lies - crowd size, millions of illegal voters - which undermines his credibility and ability to lead.
Do you think Rand Paul possessed what is needed in a POTUS? If not, who do you think did? Also, would you have been more comfortable with Hillary in charge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I would have been more comfortable with Hillary, though she would have surely tried to do things I did not like.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Not sure about Rand Paul. No one that checks all the boxes with me will be a viable national candidate, I am afraid.
So the things that could have been with her in charge are of no significance to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Single pay health care.
Less O&G exploration
Extreme Liberal Supreme Court
...the list is long.
Not really a fan of those, but can live with them. Trump was and is a more existential threat to our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Finally having the respect of our allies and some enemies other than North Korea and Iran is a problem for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You don't agree with CNN that his recent tour has been a success?
I don't know that we have won the respect of our allies. I think some of our traditional allies have concern with our leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
As far as his first international trip - I don't know. A mixed bag. He took a softer stance on Islam, openly chastised our NATO allies to their faces that they weren't paying enough, didn't do any press conferences in Europe (which certainly limited his ability to go off script). Melania showed up. Noncommittal on the Paris climate agreement. That is all I remember of it.
Poor ole Goosey. Well, I think you should denounce your US citizenship and take refuge in a country more to your liking, like: Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, the Island of Pago Pago... then check back in 8 years and see if we have a POTUS a lil more tolerable.
BINGO!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Only someone like you could find fault in his recent trip. By ALL measures it was a rip-roaring success! How do I know that? Well, first, of course, I know about such things. But, in this case, even if I didn't follow politics and our foreign affairs closely, I'd only have to watch CNN/MSNBC and see very little mention of the trip. Tells me Trump did well, else they would be filling their propaganda shows with non-stop whining.
And, no surprise, you admit you know very little about the trip...yet you feel qualified to comment on it and Trump's performance. Typical. You comment a lot on things you know very little about.
It was covered. But without his participation in press conferences, there was little to upstage his Russia problems at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Nope. He is in this mess because of his temperament and actions, especially the actions of his agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Have the liberal loonies given up on getting Trump? They've now gone after his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The liberal news rags like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times are floating Kushner's name out there as being investigated. Is his crime being Jewish? Wasn't there another guy that hated jews about 80 years ago? They will never find anything on Trump or Kushner. Liberals have been searching for something on Trump for over a year and they've found nothing, even with the help of the FBI and CIA. Did anybody notice the arrogance of Brennan when he was interviewed by Trey Gowdy? He tried to beat around the bush and acted like he had something on Trump, but, Gowdy wouldn't let him off. I think Brennan goes down with Obama. This guy is a crook and should never have been in charge of the CIA. Here's five words for you liberals to think about, Obama's legacy is Trump's presidency.
Maybe you missed the fact that he is part of the investigation for having pre-election contacts with Russians and for his role in organizing backchannel communications between the campaign and Russia. I don't think they are saying he is a target of the investigation at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I bet you got this from CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Nope. Reuters. They broke it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
You are way too easily influenced by these liberal propaganda machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Reuters is not liberal. Do you read anything other than conservative-based news?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
A whole lot of words that reinforces that there is a concentrated effort to discredit Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I have never said if any of it has been unfair or fair since we don't know anything, yet. We really don't know anything. It is all speculation. Almost all of it being negative, when considering the sources disseminating the information, can and should only have one being skeptical as hell about what is being said. Read it, think about it, but don't form a conclusion based on it. Don't dismiss out of hand, either.
Why not both? That's something everyone else doesn't seem to realize, it can be and most likely is both but people only want to argue one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It's more about Kushner maybe lying in his background check forms and interviews for a security clearance more than the act itself. Despite what some are trying to say about it now, these type of back-channel connections have been standard procedure for forever in international relations. They're necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Again, typical. Let's see....hmmmm.... Trump is kicking ass on his first international trip as Prez...can't have that. I Know! Keep harping on the BS non-story of Russian influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I wouldn't say that Trump is kicking ass on his first foreign trip. I think a better description would be that he is making an ass of himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Proof? I have significantly more connections to the intelligence community than you and that is a complete falsehood! Where is your proof of that strong statement? You are making an absolute statement of which the intelligence community rarely if ever does much less hints at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Like what Hillary did? She would be in jail quickly if she were in a worker position of handling intelligence. I have seen people do far less to expose intelligence and end up behind bars. To make the claim that the sensitive intelligence didn't have markings is utter disregard for how it is produced. The intelligence of that nature is marked when collected as it gains that level of classification due to the source. There are no exceptions. She not only exposed intelligence but far worse operations. Both of those types of classification require EVERYONE to sign documents that state that the penalty for exposing such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
This whole charade by the democrats to "expose" Trump is an attempt to hide their misdeeds and undermine the administration.
Oh wait! Trump wears his tie too long and looks unpresidential! What will the liberals try next. Wait! Melania was upset with Donald and slapped his hand for exiting the plane first as every other president does by protocol.
Clapper has stated several times under oath that he knows of no collusion between the Trump people and the Russians.
Criminal statutes that impose sentences of imprisonment have a mens rea requirment, and I think that it was the lack of evidence of her knowledge that the information was classified is what kept charges from being brought against her.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
But, I am sure others would have at least lost their jobs under similar circumstances.
Are they leaking to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
I still don't understand why Trump fired Comey if the Russia investigation is much ado about nothing. Now there is a Special Counsel to look into the matter (and possibly more). Query: Can the FBI take a look at Trump's tax returns?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
Here is the declassified proof, and then there has been the testimony of Comey and Clapper.
But he has also stated that it is not unusual for him not to know based on his position and role. He wasn't part of the investigation regarding collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
No, are you getting leaks? No you aren't because you would not be saying such foolish things if you were. I worked in that community and the operational community for many years and know the how it operates. There is nothing in my statement that implies anything other than how these people state their assessments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The head of ALL intelligence for the US has access to everything and something of this importance would be briefed to him on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Comey has said otherwise. He said he was not aware of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation that had been going on since July.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
Russians have been "trying" for years to influence. Nothing new there. You still haven't proven that there was collusion between the Russians government and Trump people. And to add to Salty's wonder at firing Comey, Trump should have done it when he took office. Comey was out of line even during the campaign. It wasn't because of the investigation. Besides, there is an independent counsel now to look into this hopefully without political influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Good evening.
Hillary Clinton should have been put in jail and never allowed to run for president.
I never said I have seen proof of collusion, but that is one of the things they are investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
The independent counsel is looking to see if a crime was committed. There is still lots of shady stuff that may have gone on and we need to know about that too.
For what crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Regardless of what the Special Counsel finds out, I think that Trump has done a terrible job in handling the "fake news" of Russian involvement in his campaign. Hiring Flynn as National Security Adviser has to be one of the stupidest appointments ever. The guy even dragged Jared Kushner into the dumb-ass Russia quicksand. I don't know what these guys were up to in wanting to use Russia communications equipment for a "back-channel" when they were not even in Office yet. I still don't know why Trump wants to be buddy-buddy with Russia, the Evil Empire back then and STILL is.
#3 is totally false. The DNC leak was an inside job, and Julian Assange has hinted as much. And Assange has stated absolutely that the Russians were not the source of the Wikileaks information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Sad that you would believe a hostile intelligence over your own. That is about as unAmerican as it gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Not that you care to learn anything that would discredit your unlearned opinion on the subject, but here is a decent write up on the relevant law and why charges were not brought.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/wh...-clinton-case/
"Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
{The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.}
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."
You don't need "intent" to prove that somebody committed a crime.
I read a very liberal newspaper every day, The Arkansas Democrat -Gazette.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Treason, in both the Benghazi case and the unlawful handling of classified documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yes, you do. Intent is an element of every crime that is punishable by jail time. It's a constitution thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Yeah, that is not treason under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
That is not liberal. In fact, it scores right of center.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/arkan...ocrat-gazette/
You can find a lot of people in prison that say that had no intent of committing a crime. Do you believe the Clintons are above the laws that apply to everyday folks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Do you read it every day like I do? You seem obsessed with having everybody think the same way as you. Do you have a job? You seem to be posting on this board 24/7. I don't have time for that and I'm retired and definitely didn't have time when I worked. .Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Better check the definition of treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Things like the elements of a crime are really beyond the comprehension of a Trumper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
What do you call it when you share classified information with every other country? I call it treason. Maybe we could call her a deserter for the Benghazi crime. She was definitely no where to be found while the Embassy was under attack for 13 hours and 4 Americans were killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Intent has to be proven by the state. If you are in jail, then it was. Lots of people in jail claim they are innocent. Do you believe different laws should apply to the Clintons?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
The real hostile intelligence comes from politicians with (D) after their names and their Deep State operatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Prove Assange wrong. Until then, stuff it.
Yeah, it might be bad and have political repercussions, but that doesn't make it a crime under the law. Apparently the FBI didn't have evidence that tended to show that she knew she was supplying classified information to a foreign power with the intent of benefitting the foreign power. Thus, no violation of the law. For what it is worth, Comey did help the republicans out by publicly declaring that what Clinton did was irresponsible and reckless.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I'm not aware that Hillary could have done anything to save those people who died at the Consulate. The Ambassador was warned not to go. Hillary did not have any direct control over the CIA assets in the area. What exactly did you want her to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Our IC proved Assange wrong. I take it that you were unwilling to read their unclassified report.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
Prove our IC wrong. Until then, you stuff it.
Funny that you do not apply this standard to all the "alleged" Trump stories. Asking Comey to go easy on Flint is not a crime because there was no "or else" involved with the request (if the request even happened). Colluding with the Russias isn't even a crime. Giving Russia a piece of classified intelligence is not against the law, because the president can declassify stuff. If you don't see this entire exercise is just an attempt to stop Trump from implementing his agenda and ruin his presidency, you have been reading too much fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I have no doubts that Obama colluded with the Muslim Brotherhood (no proof, but that doesn't seem to matter any more), and that he conspired against Netanyahu (an ally) in Israel, and made secret deals with Iran that were in direct opposition of US interests, but i suppose technically no laws were violated.
I didn't say they were crimes - though the Flynn one comes close to obstruction of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
I'm not trying to get into all the discussion leading up to this post, but on a similar note regarding your opinion of the Flynn issue, how do you feel about Bill and Lynch on the tarmac?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
How do you feel about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
What did they talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Her account was that they talked about Brexit and grandchildren and nothing inappropriate. If that is true, then there was no crime. Maybe stupid since it increases the odds that someone will speculate that something improper was done. Is there another account?
But, according to the latest accounts Comey unilaterally ended the investigation due to "special circumstances" - fake news that the IC was going to feel the need to debunk, but in doing so would require revealing sources and methods.
But, if Bill pressured her to not bring charges against HRC, that would be similar to the situation between Trump and Comey regardjng Flynn.
So you supposedly base your opinions on there being a lot of "smoke" involved with Trump, but in no way will you suspend your partisan brainwashing to see that something is burning out of control here? There is no reason to "reason" with you, because there is no reasoning behind your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
In the case of Trump - there are sources reporting what was said, and what was said according to the reports is bad. That is more than smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
In the case of Bill - the only accounts of what was said (Lynch) were not bad. Maybe a little smoke, but it seems to disappear a great deal with the latest accounts that suggest Comey unilaterally ended the investigation without advising Lynch.
I've heard no other account. But it was reported that they tried to keep the meeting secret and no reporters were supposed to know the meeting happened. Does that matter to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I find it very suspicious that they wanted the meeting kept secret and, the explanation of what was said when asked, and how it was stated, seemed like lies to me. But I have no idea other than what was said. It just looked bad. they could have discussed Brexit golf and grandchildren for 45 minutes on a phone call. It was a stupid move if that's all they talked about...and they aren't stupid. why the need for the attempted secrecy? Why take a chance? I believe there was a reason. But I should just take their word for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
How do you feel about it?
Yeah, it does matter in sorting out whether there was actual impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. One is illegal and the other is just a mistake and a "black eye" on the DOJ. Yeah, it shouldn't have happened given the circumstances surrounding the investigation of HRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Are the reports that Bill initiated the meeting? Who allegedly insisted on secrecy?
Either you're a dyed in the wool democrat that is ok with anything a friggin Clinton does, or you're the most naive person I've ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You hoarding tin foil too?Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
This is from a CNN article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
"According to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter, the former president saw Lynch's plane on the tarmac and walked onto her aircraft. Lynch's FBI security detail did not stop Clinton and he proceeded to initiate an extended conversation..."
The FBI were quoted as saying, "no photos, no pictures, no cell phones" to a journalist who got a tip on the meeting and tried to cover it.
Are you talking about this guy's report?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-pho...ely-in-phoenix
Curious why he didn't mention the "no photos..." instruction bit in his report.
Interestingly, that tarmac meeting was the "capper" that caused the FBI to reopen the investigation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bus...-emails-2017-5
"I'm not picking on the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me," Comey said. "And I then said, 'You know what? The department cannot, by itself, credibly end this.'"
The meeting happened days before Comey held a press conference to announce the conclusion of the investigation, at which he said the bureau would not recommend criminal charges but that the former secretary of state had acted recklessly by using the private server.
Comey said he called Lynch the morning of the press conference to alert her to his decision to hold it. But Comey said he would not tell her what he was planning to say.
"I said to her, 'I hope someday you'll understand why I think I have to do this,'" Comey said. "But look, I was not loving this. I knew this would be disastrous for me personally. But I thought this is the best way to protect these institutions we care so much about."
Nope. I'll see if I can find it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Edit: there are several. Here is one. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporter-...inton-meeting/
Then there's this... http://nypost.com/2016/10/03/book-de...hillary-skate/. But I admit the NYPost isn't the most unbiased of sources...but what is these days?