Are we better off with a discredited FBI?

Thing1 said:
You guys are already trying to cling to whatever scraps you can now.

This thing was way too hyped. In case you're taking notes, this is what a nothing burger actually looks like.
Click to expand...

Illegally obtained secret warrants are nothing burgers? What an ignorant idea.
 
Guest said:
If Page is a Russian agent, why wasn't he charged with a crime between 2013 and now?
Click to expand...
yes. i mentioned that the other day, that's a long time to be walking around committing Espionage.

The problem with domestic spying like this FISA warrant is it's cooked up, and then once you are in the crosshairs..
you stay there
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you're going on record as believing Clinton didn't?.....
Click to expand...

Imagine that President Hillary Clinton had agreed to release a partisan Democratic intelligence memo over the objections of Republicans in Congress and her own top F.B.I. officials that disclosure could harm national security.

Would conservative pundits and politicians:
(a) Praise President Clinton for abandoning her old habits of secrecy and standing strong on the side of transparency in government?
(b) Call for her impeachment on grounds that she had compromised national security for shamelessly self-serving political reasons?
Imagine, next, that the Clinton campaign had named as a foreign policy adviser a little known figure with scanty business or academic credentials but with strongly pro-Putin views and curious links to senior Russian officials. Imagine that this same adviser later testified to Congress that the Clinton campaign had asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement after a trip he took to Russia during the height of the campaign.

Imagine also that senior Clinton campaign officials at first denied and later had their memories “refreshed” about knowing him.

Would conservative pundits and politicians:
(a) Agree with Clinton administration spokespersons that, while the campaign had named him as an adviser, he had no role in anything and that his links to Russia were purely incidental?
(b) Agree with Democrats in Congress that the F.B.I. had no business whatsoever in surveilling him because a political dossier might have served as one basis of suspicion, and that his civil liberties had been seriously traduced?
(c) Note that his presence on the campaign was of a piece with Clinton’s disastrous “reset” of relations with Russia under the Obama administration, and that it suggested a policy of appeasing the Kremlin at America’s expense?

Imagine, finally, that after firing James Comey for insufficient loyalty, President Clinton had asked the deputy director of the F.B.I. how he had voted in the election in an Oval Office meeting. Imagine that after learning that he hadn’t voted, she unleashed a campaign of public invective and belittlement aimed at his wife for having once run for state office as a Republican. Imagine, in this same connection, that the effort to oust the deputy director was only a warm-up to getting rid of the deputy attorney general, a well-regarded, straight-shooting Democrat who had appointed the special counsel looking into Clinton’s Russia ties.

Would conservative pundits and politicians:
(a) Applaud President Clinton for taking a belated but necessary step to clean up a “politicized” Justice Department that had interfered against her at the end of the campaign, while also agreeing that the party affiliation of an F.B.I. official’s spouse is a legitimate basis to suspect the official of disloyalty and partisan motives?
(b) Cast aspersions on the deputy attorney general for defending the work of the special counsel against the wishes of the president?
(c) Accuse the president of obstructing justice by smearing and effectively ousting upstanding public servants whose only sin was to do their jobs to the best of their abilities while, in one case, being married to a woman with political ambitions?
 
Stretch said:
We need a Special Counsel. Someone apolitical from out in Iowa or somewhere who has never even visited D.C.
Click to expand...

We're fine.

Let the investigation play out. When they make their conclusions public, we call all judge it based on the evidence that they have. The FBI can't just fabricate charges.
 
Stretch said:
:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Why is that hilarious?

However this investigation ends up, we're going to see everything that they uncovered. We're going to see whatever evidence they have.

So, why are you & Trump so afraid? If you were a supporter of the Clintons, you'd be used to years of multiple investigations that turned up pretty much nothing aside from lying about an affair. You guys are just new to this - you don't like being investigated. No one does.

But ultimately, the investigation & its conclusions will be judged on the merits.
 
blackascoal said:
Yes, I concede that anyone as intellectually lacking as you are about 12th grade history is not worth teaching.
Click to expand...

The former Slave States elected Democrat Jimmy Carter in '76

... so that kills any Nixonian meme. He was a Yuuuge AA supporter, BTW.

... or are you a believer in the dixiecrat meme ... that the parties traded names back then
:dunno:
 
Thing1 said:
The reverse of that is true, as well. For years, all we've heard from your side is how we need to let law enforcement do their jobs, and intense criticism for those who questioned it.
Click to expand...

Rioting and looting? :palm:

VS. letting the judicial system work
:palm:
 
If the FBI is doing stuff that would discredit it, then us knowing is better. Now, we know that the FBI isn't a Borg institution who have a hive mind, so it is likely the actions of a few at the top being discredited won't discredit the whole organization. So, is the hyperbole a bit much? I'd say yes to that question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top