Was OBAMA's Inspector General Probe Designed To Hurt President Trump..But Is Now Backfiring?.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: The GUT

James Comey confused a lot of people too, when he cleared Hillary in July 2016, then helped her lose the election by reopening her criminal investigation.

From what I understand, there was a small mutiny brewing in Comey's department.

He HAD to reopen the case or else the other FBI investigators would have leaked that the FBI was sandbagging the case.

The story has been reported that the NYPD that initially took possession of the Weiner laptop and knew what was on it told the FBI that they would go public if the FBI didn't.
Comey's hand was forced.
Then he miraculously cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing just before the election in a time frame that did not realistically allow for proper examination of the evidence in the laptop.

a reply to: c2oden

Or it could be that they are right, and are waiting.

At this point we have not seen anything that actually points to them being potentially right. All we have is evidence to suggest people aren't bright enough to understand context and will create conspiracies where none exist.

This is not how government is supposed to work. If you truly believe that Hillary is innocent, there is nothing that anybody could type to make you change your mind.

Can you guys at least try to present a logical argument? This is pathetic and, as you say, sad.

As far as Hilary's emails go, Introvert likes to make the same lame argument.

He claims that most classified information violations are handled at the local level, only resulting in administrative actions.

While this is true, he continues to ignore the 800 lb gorilla, which is, what happens when classified information violations are referred to the FBI, which then takes them out of the realm of local administration.

A clearer case would be represented by how many classified information violations that are referred to the FBI for possible criminal violations result in punitive punishment at the local level.

I would wager very very few if any at all, other than the suspension of a clearance, which is normally the very first thing that happens.

I believe the IG report will show clear misconduct in the handling of Hillary's email case, among other things.

a reply to: carewemust

And what does the DOJ say?
That is biased opinions of GOP members only.
The FBI doesn't agree. They say that no laws were broken in the application and that trump was not spied on.
He sure wastes a lot of time defending the premise that they're out to get him. Paranoid possibly because he knows he's guilty????

In any event if there is anything to the opinions you linked the FBI the CIA and DOJ will discover them and your guy can crow like the cock he is . But until then it's not really looking like it's steering in that direction.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The FBI doesn't agree. They say that no laws were broken in the application and that trump was not spied on.

Sure, that's why Mike Rogers from the NSA had FISA abuse investigated and the FISA court ended up ruling and writing a 99 page report of all of the FISA abuse that was going on. That 99 page court ruling was released in April 2017 and 10 pages of it was dedicated to abuses from the FBI.

a reply to: Deetermined

Where is that? Available as a down load?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

Where is that? Available as a down load?

Links to it have been posted in ATS a number of times, so it is real.

The FISA court also released a similar report years ago chastising the Bush (43) administration for FISA abuse.

National Review has a link ti the report that you are looking for.

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: carewemust

Now you went and done it.
The Leftist’s heads will explode for sure now.

You keep saying that, yet here my head is, all unexploded.

Maybe you are not a leftist?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

Where is that? Available as a down load?

Here's the 99 page FISA court ruling on all of the FISA abuses that had taken place under the investigation that was released last April.

www.dni.gov...

a reply to: RickinVa

You're funny Rick. Did you even think before you posted that?

You admit that I am right, but at the same time say it's a lame argument.

The rest of your post is worthless when all you have to rely on is your beliefs.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: introvert

The 2 reports from the House and Senate Intelligence committees this month, show that laws were broken.

No. They imply that laws were broken, but do not provide any evidence.

You must watch and read only Liberal media... Correct?

Why do you assume someone has to inform themselves only through the media?

Because the Right Wing media told you so?

If it happens to be only 'right wing' or conservative media that (not surprisingly) is actually paying attention to many public released documents, then so be it. It doesn't negate the significance of said documents....of which do seem to imply laws may have been broken and deserve further investigation. Also, in the perspective of a massive investigation against Trump, of which has yielded little or nothing of significance so far, it is understandable for conservatives or really anyone else to find this to be very important.

a reply to: butcherguy

I remember Comey saying that there were 25,000 e-mails that needed to be parsed over. That he'd issue a final report "in a few weeks". A.G. Loretta Lynch was LIVID. That was about 10 days before the election. Five days later... Hillary was cleared...AGAIN.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

Where is that? Available as a down load?

Does that mean that you will A.) Read it and, B.) acknowledge it if it exists contrary to your previously uniformed opinion?

Some of y'all don't seem to research further than what CNN and other propaganda outlets tell you and come to these arguments ignorant of the available evidentiary items.

What some of you see as an echo chamber are in all actuality folk who are better informed than yourselves by doing due diligence and researching the issues. Thankfully there are more folk here at ATS that do due diligence than not.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

You're funny Rick. Did you even think before you posted that?

You admit that I am right, but at the same time say it's a lame argument.

The rest of your post is worthless when all you have to rely on is your beliefs.

You are a funny dude.

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

What is the percentage of cases where violation of laws concerning classified information that is referred by an local agency to the FBI for investigation gets kicked back to that local agency for punishment as opposed to criminal charges being filed?

Or if you can't understand that concept, how many cases of violations of laws concerning classified information that are referred by an agency to the FBI for investigation result in no charges?

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.(Other than Hillary of course)

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

What is the percentage of cases where violation of laws concerning classified information that is referred by an local agency to the FBI for investigation gets kicked back to that local agency for punishment as opposed to criminal charges being filed?

Or if you can't understand that concept, how many cases of violations of laws concerning classified information that are referred by an agency to the FBI for investigation result in no charges?

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.(Other than Hillary of course)

I don't know. Why don't you find those statistics yourself before you make assumptions?

Also, how is that sort of statistic relevant or indicative of potential guilt in Hillary's case?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

What is the percentage of cases where violation of laws concerning classified information that is referred by an local agency to the FBI for investigation gets kicked back to that local agency for punishment as opposed to criminal charges being filed?

Or if you can't understand that concept, how many cases of violations of laws concerning classified information that are referred by an agency to the FBI for investigation result in no charges?

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.(Other than Hillary of course)

I don't know. Why don't you find those statistics yourself before you make assumptions?

Also, how is that sort of statistic relevant or indicative of potential guilt in Hillary's case?

I didn't make any assumptions...I asked a simple question.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

What is the percentage of cases where violation of laws concerning classified information that is referred by an local agency to the FBI for investigation gets kicked back to that local agency for punishment as opposed to criminal charges being filed?

Or if you can't understand that concept, how many cases of violations of laws concerning classified information that are referred by an agency to the FBI for investigation result in no charges?

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.(Other than Hillary of course)

I don't know. Why don't you find those statistics yourself before you make assumptions?

Also, how is that sort of statistic relevant or indicative of potential guilt in Hillary's case?

I didn't make any assumptions...I asked a simple question.

Yes, a question you do not seem to know the answer to, yet you said this:

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.

If you do not know the answer and have to ask, how can you say what you did?

You made an assumption.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: empireoflizards

What significance? They make claims, yet provide no proof.

a reply to: RickinVa

Might want to re-read what I posted, you are lacking in basic comprehension.

I read it just fine. You contradicted yourself. Not to mention you also make no sense when saying the 800lb gorilla is when such violations are referred to the FBI.

What is the percentage of cases where violation of laws concerning classified information that is referred by an local agency to the FBI for investigation gets kicked back to that local agency for punishment as opposed to criminal charges being filed?

Or if you can't understand that concept, how many cases of violations of laws concerning classified information that are referred by an agency to the FBI for investigation result in no charges?

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.(Other than Hillary of course)

I don't know. Why don't you find those statistics yourself before you make assumptions?

Also, how is that sort of statistic relevant or indicative of potential guilt in Hillary's case?

I didn't make any assumptions...I asked a simple question.

Yes, a question you do not seem to know the answer to, yet you said this:

That is the question and the answer is very very few if any at all. Most likely none.

If you do not know the answer and have to ask, how can you say what you did?

You made an assumption.

Bingo....although I thought it wouldn't take you so long to reply.


If the answer is never, then Hillary would be the norm.

If the answer is almost always, then it would appear Hillary would be an abnormal case.


Carry on sir...done playing with you for today.


Now we wait for the DOJ IG's report.