Page 1 of 9

More interference with the FBI

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:32 pm
by Bob78164
The White House, through Jeff Sessions, has been pressuring FBI Director Christopher Wray to fire the Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. Wray responded by threatening to resign himself if McCabe were removed from his post. Not wanting another Saturday Night Massacre on his hands, Donny caved. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:16 pm
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:The White House, through Jeff Sessions, has been pressuring FBI Director Christopher Wray to fire the Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. Wray responded by threatening to resign himself if McCabe were removed from his post. Not wanting another Saturday Night Massacre on his hands, Donny caved.
And you would have bitched even more if he hadn't "caved!"

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:59 pm
by Bob78164
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The White House, through Jeff Sessions, has been pressuring FBI Director Christopher Wray to fire the Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. Wray responded by threatening to resign himself if McCabe were removed from his post. Not wanting another Saturday Night Massacre on his hands, Donny caved.
And you would have bitched even more if he hadn't "caved!"
Damn straight.

But as someone who billed himself as a tough negotiator, he seems to do an awful lot of that. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:52 pm
by flockofseagulls104
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:The White House, through Jeff Sessions, has been pressuring FBI Director Christopher Wray to fire the Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. Wray responded by threatening to resign himself if McCabe were removed from his post. Not wanting another Saturday Night Massacre on his hands, Donny caved.
And you would have bitched even more if he hadn't "caved!"
Damn straight.

But as someone who billed himself as a tough negotiator, he seems to do an awful lot of that. --Bob
Like Schumer did?

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:01 am
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:And you would have bitched even more if he hadn't "caved!"
Damn straight.

But as someone who billed himself as a tough negotiator, he seems to do an awful lot of that. --Bob
Like Schumer did?
I'm fine with the current agreement. If McConnell doesn't follow through on his promise to bring an acceptable DACA bill to a vote, we'll see what happens in three weeks. And in three weeks, Republicans won't have CHIP available as a bargaining chip. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:31 am
by BackInTex
Seriously? You want to start discussing interference and the FBI in the same thread? Let's start with the election. Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost, but I dare say the Obama FBI/Justice organization was fraught with corruption and intention to influence if not down right manipulate the election results.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:31 am
by silverscreenselect
BackInTex wrote: Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost.
A far more likely explanation is that the "evidence" never existed at all except in the minds of the same conspiracy theorists who spent a quarter century manufacturing conspiracies involving the Clintons and for the last decade, Obama. The "evidence" that does exist is mostly rumor, innuendo, and baseless conjecture driven by that same hatred of Obama and the Clintons.

If they were so good at planning, executing, and removing actual evidence, and with the full weight of the Justice Department and FBI at their disposal (an FBI, by the way, that traditionally has been staffed by primarily conservative special agents who more than likely voted Republican but somehow morphed into Obama's personal hit squad prior to the election), then why didn't they do a better job of actually riggin the election?

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:58 am
by tlynn78
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost.
A far more likely explanation is that the "evidence" never existed at all except in the minds of the same conspiracy theorists who spent a quarter century manufacturing conspiracies involving the Clintons and for the last decade, Obama. The "evidence" that does exist is mostly rumor, innuendo, and baseless conjecture driven by that same hatred of Obama and the Clintons.

If they were so good at planning, executing, and removing actual evidence, and with the full weight of the Justice Department and FBI at their disposal (an FBI, by the way, that traditionally has been staffed by primarily conservative special agents who more than likely voted Republican but somehow morphed into Obama's personal hit squad prior to the election), then why didn't they do a better job of actually riggin the election?
Every time I think you guys couldn't be any more hysterical, you prove me wrong. Seriously amusing stuff.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:15 am
by flockofseagulls104
tlynn78 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote: Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost.
A far more likely explanation is that the "evidence" never existed at all except in the minds of the same conspiracy theorists who spent a quarter century manufacturing conspiracies involving the Clintons and for the last decade, Obama. The "evidence" that does exist is mostly rumor, innuendo, and baseless conjecture driven by that same hatred of Obama and the Clintons.

If they were so good at planning, executing, and removing actual evidence, and with the full weight of the Justice Department and FBI at their disposal (an FBI, by the way, that traditionally has been staffed by primarily conservative special agents who more than likely voted Republican but somehow morphed into Obama's personal hit squad prior to the election), then why didn't they do a better job of actually riggin the election?
Every time I think you guys couldn't be any more hysterical, you prove me wrong. Seriously amusing stuff.
After more than a year of investigation by Mueller's squad of democratic operatives, 24-7 reporting by CNN, MSBLT and all the others, give me ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was ANY collusion between trump and the Russians. Once you accomplish that, you can talk about conspiracy theories.

In the meantime, we have 30,000 destroyed emails by Clinton, 5 months of lost texts that might explain Strzok's insurance policy comment, a thoroughly made up dossier peddled throughout the media and the FBI that was paid for by Clinton, and who knows what else? Where are Woodward and Bernstein of today?

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:33 am
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
After more than a year of investigation by Mueller's squad of democratic operatives, 24-7 reporting by CNN, MSBLT and all the others, give me ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was ANY collusion between trump and the Russians. Once you accomplish that, you can talk about conspiracy theories.
Considering that Trump's only been in office one year, Mueller's investigation hasn't been around that long, and it's already resulted in four convictions (a guilty plea is a conviction) or indictments. By contrast, the Watergate breakin took place in June, 1972, and the first arrests (other than the actual burglars, Hunt and Liddy) were in January 1974.

And, by the way, Jeff Sessions is talking with Mueller today.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:34 am
by Bob Juch
BackInTex wrote:Seriously? You want to start discussing interference and the FBI in the same thread? Let's start with the election. Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost, but I dare say the Obama FBI/Justice organization was fraught with corruption and intention to influence if not down right manipulate the election results.
What?! Who announced the new Hillary emails had been discovered and were being investigated just before the election? I say that's why she lost.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:19 pm
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
After more than a year of investigation by Mueller's squad of democratic operatives, 24-7 reporting by CNN, MSBLT and all the others, give me ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was ANY collusion between trump and the Russians. Once you accomplish that, you can talk about conspiracy theories.
Considering that Trump's only been in office one year, Mueller's investigation hasn't been around that long, and it's already resulted in four convictions (a guilty plea is a conviction) or indictments. By contrast, the Watergate breakin took place in June, 1972, and the first arrests (other than the actual burglars, Hunt and Liddy) were in January 1974.

And, by the way, Jeff Sessions is talking with Mueller today.
My question remains unanswered.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:09 pm
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote: My question remains unanswered.
You seem to have a misconception of how prosecutor's offices work. They do not release progress reports to the media and politicians as to what evidence they have uncovered, what witnesses are helpful, what they think occurred, and what their next steps will be. There are also not under any obligation to make an arrest as soon as they think they have enough evidence of any single crime. Instead, they keep gathering evidence, talking to witnesses, persuading witnesses like Flynn and Papadapoulos to turn and building as strong a case as possible against as many people as the evidence supports. That's how they operate when they gather information in any high profile case, whether a drug cartel, mob bosses, or complex financial crimes.

Have you ever heard a prosecutor announce that they have reliable information about when and where a major drug transaction is going to take place and they expect to make an arrest in the near future so reporters should be on the lookout for activity around the waterfront on Friday night?

You (and presumably the defendants) know what evidence prosecutors have when they make arrests. And you'll know soon enough.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:59 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
A far more likely explanation is that the "evidence" never existed at all except in the minds of the same conspiracy theorists who spent a quarter century manufacturing conspiracies involving the Clintons and for the last decade, Obama. The "evidence" that does exist is mostly rumor, innuendo, and baseless conjecture driven by that same hatred of Obama and the Clintons.

If they were so good at planning, executing, and removing actual evidence, and with the full weight of the Justice Department and FBI at their disposal (an FBI, by the way, that traditionally has been staffed by primarily conservative special agents who more than likely voted Republican but somehow morphed into Obama's personal hit squad prior to the election), then why didn't they do a better job of actually riggin the election?
Every time I think you guys couldn't be any more hysterical, you prove me wrong. Seriously amusing stuff.
After more than a year of investigation by Mueller's squad of democratic operatives, 24-7 reporting by CNN, MSBLT and all the others, give me ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was ANY collusion between trump and the Russians.
You just want a shred of evidence? Sure. Donny fired the first guy who investigated the issue when he wouldn't drop the subject. That's evidence of an awareness of guilt. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:04 pm
by tlynn78
You just want a shred of evidence? Sure. Donny fired the first guy who investigated the issue when he wouldn't drop the subject. That's evidence of an awareness of guilt. --Bob

Right. Because firing Comey made the 'evidence' go away. :lol:

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:47 pm
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: My question remains unanswered.
You seem to have a misconception of how prosecutor's offices work. They do not release progress reports to the media and politicians as to what evidence they have uncovered, what witnesses are helpful, what they think occurred, and what their next steps will be. There are also not under any obligation to make an arrest as soon as they think they have enough evidence of any single crime. Instead, they keep gathering evidence, talking to witnesses, persuading witnesses like Flynn and Papadapoulos to turn and building as strong a case as possible against as many people as the evidence supports. That's how they operate when they gather information in any high profile case, whether a drug cartel, mob bosses, or complex financial crimes.

Have you ever heard a prosecutor announce that they have reliable information about when and where a major drug transaction is going to take place and they expect to make an arrest in the near future so reporters should be on the lookout for activity around the waterfront on Friday night?

You (and presumably the defendants) know what evidence prosecutors have when they make arrests. And you'll know soon enough.
Are you f**king kidding me? Everything else has been leaked. You think if they came across something that was the least bit actually incriminating, that we wouldn't know about it by now?

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:56 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: My question remains unanswered.
You seem to have a misconception of how prosecutor's offices work. They do not release progress reports to the media and politicians as to what evidence they have uncovered, what witnesses are helpful, what they think occurred, and what their next steps will be. There are also not under any obligation to make an arrest as soon as they think they have enough evidence of any single crime. Instead, they keep gathering evidence, talking to witnesses, persuading witnesses like Flynn and Papadapoulos to turn and building as strong a case as possible against as many people as the evidence supports. That's how they operate when they gather information in any high profile case, whether a drug cartel, mob bosses, or complex financial crimes.

Have you ever heard a prosecutor announce that they have reliable information about when and where a major drug transaction is going to take place and they expect to make an arrest in the near future so reporters should be on the lookout for activity around the waterfront on Friday night?

You (and presumably the defendants) know what evidence prosecutors have when they make arrests. And you'll know soon enough.
Are you f**king kidding me? Everything else has been leaked. You think if they came across something that was the least bit actually incriminating, that we wouldn't know about it by now?
Really? I can't think of any leaks from the special prosecutor's office. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:28 pm
by silverscreenselect
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Are you f**king kidding me? Everything else has been leaked. You think if they came across something that was the least bit actually incriminating, that we wouldn't know about it by now?
The leaks that have emerged have generally come from people in the Trump White House, not the Special Prosecutor. Their job is to get convictions. You don't do that by tipping off the defense to what you have and allowing them to remove evidence or witnesses or similar tactics.

The fact they want to talk to Trump now indicates that they're pretty much ready to move and want to nail him down. Either he lies (which is a felony) or he fesses up and essentially rats his closest circle out or he takes the fifth. Knowing trump and his stable genius, I'm guessing he's going to try to B.S. his way through which won't fly with Mueller's investigators very well.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:54 pm
by Estonut
silverscreenselect wrote:The leaks that have emerged have generally come from people in the Trump White House, not the Special Prosecutor. Their job is to get convictions. You don't do that by tipping off the defense to what you have and allowing them to remove evidence or witnesses or similar tactics.
Unless, of course, you are investing a Clinton.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:57 pm
by mrkelley23
Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:The leaks that have emerged have generally come from people in the Trump White House, not the Special Prosecutor. Their job is to get convictions. You don't do that by tipping off the defense to what you have and allowing them to remove evidence or witnesses or similar tactics.
Unless, of course, you are investing a Clinton.
Sarcafont needed here, or was that a Freudenesque slip?

:)

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:01 pm
by Estonut
mrkelley23 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:The leaks that have emerged have generally come from people in the Trump White House, not the Special Prosecutor. Their job is to get convictions. You don't do that by tipping off the defense to what you have and allowing them to remove evidence or witnesses or similar tactics.
Unless, of course, you are investing a Clinton.
Sarcafont needed here, or was that a Freudenesque slip?

:)
Neither. Just typo'd on investigating. I even previewed before submitting it and read it back as I had intended it. In reference to allowing evidence and witnesses to be removed.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:56 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Seriously? You want to start discussing interference and the FBI in the same thread? Let's start with the election. Admittedly we don't have all the evidence because a lot of it has conveniently been lost, but I dare say the Obama FBI/Justice organization was fraught with corruption and intention to influence if not down right manipulate the election results.
Are you talking about this? This bears all the hallmarks of an invented story. It's being pushed by Republican operatives who (and this is the crucial giveaway) don't want to release all of the information (in this case, the texts), just the portion that they think supports their narrative. If there was any there there, Republicans would have released all of the pair's texts to the press and we'd be able to see for ourselves the truth or falsity of what's being claimed.

And that's leaving aside that Comey's unprecedented policy departure by commenting publicly on an ongoing investigation approximately a week before the election was a direct contributing factor to Donny's election. Arguing that the FBI was trying to tip the scales in Secretary Clinton's direction is, to say the least, risible. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:32 pm
by Bob78164
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Every time I think you guys couldn't be any more hysterical, you prove me wrong. Seriously amusing stuff.
After more than a year of investigation by Mueller's squad of democratic operatives, 24-7 reporting by CNN, MSBLT and all the others, give me ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was ANY collusion between trump and the Russians.
You just want a shred of evidence? Sure. Donny fired the first guy who investigated the issue when he wouldn't drop the subject. That's evidence of an awareness of guilt. --Bob
You want some more evidence? Donny tried to order Mueller fired seven months ago. He only backed down when the White House Counsel threatened to quit. --Bob

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:45 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:You want some more evidence? Donny tried to order Mueller fired seven months ago. He only backed down when the White House Counsel threatened to quit. --Bob
Mueller should be fired, and disbarred.

Re: More interference with the FBI

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:57 pm
by silverscreenselect
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:You want some more evidence? Donny tried to order Mueller fired seven months ago. He only backed down when the White House Counsel threatened to quit. --Bob
Mueller should be fired, and disbarred.
For what, being honest, competent, and ethical (three things conspicuously lacking in the Trump White House)?

Please state one thing he has done that would be grounds for any disciplinary action.

And, by the way, the "missing" texts. They are here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 066648001/

In the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind."

I'm just waiting for Ron Johnson and his crack investigators to go through them and find one single text that contains an unusual word or two and then cite that as more "proof" of the massive anti-Trump FBI conspiracy.