10 Major FBI Scandals on Comey’s Watch

[Dashinka 24,492]

3 minutes ago, ccneat said:

"do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blizter.

“Not at this time,” replied Feinstein.

She didn't say that no one had evidence she said she did not have any.  And collusion is not necessarily the target here. Just defending our systems and institutions is enough for me.

 

You are free to bring some evidence of Obama corruption. 

 

 

 

Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas.  That is my proof.  Why are they digging into a political opponent?  They are not the DOJ, so why are they doing this.  Add to that all the other political activities of the last administration, the view becomes clearer unless one has their head in the sand.    I realize this doesn't matter to the MDL, but what the heck, let's keep investigating, maybe we can get an indictment for Susan Rice.  I am sure President Obama was sufficienctly shielded.

 

As to Feinstein, do you mean she was simply saying she did not have any evidence in her possession?  Seems a stretch to be so literal, but if it helps in the apologies for the Left, then so be it!

[Dashinka 24,492]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

So just ambiguously go after whatever random people arbitrary make up as a threat (as a cover for them losing an election because they ran a crappier campaign and presumed they had the election in the bag).. sound policy right there.

 

What's weird is you can't see through what a terrible argument you have with this Russia nonsense yet you're oblivious to the attempt to save face (that literally smacks one upside the head because it's so obvious) by blaming the Russians for everything. I gotta say, this style of marketing themselves sure won't help the Democrats come 2018 and '20.

This style of marketing has been a boon for the RNC at all levels of government!

 

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

This style of marketing has been a boon for the RNC at all levels of government!

 

Yeah.. it's clearly been backfiring on the left. And what's their response to getting hammered in the Presidential/Senate/House/Governor elections.. up the ante on this bizarre childish tantrum producing conspiracy fodder. I can tell they clearly think that when election season comes around that much of the US will forget all this happening, they'll try and put on the smarmy pedant hat again making that hilarious face Hillary would make every time Trump went after her. These people are clearly as aloof as aloof gets, and it looks like it'll take some losing for them to get back in touch with much of the country they're thumbing their noses at. Or they can just wait out the 8 year cycle until getting elected merely because people will be fed up with Trump the same way they were of Bush and Obama.

Edited May 11, 2017 by IAMX

[Dashinka 24,492]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Yeah.. it's clearly been backfiring on the left. And what's their response to getting hammered in the Presidential/Senate/House/Governor elections.. up the ante on this bizarre childish tantrum producing conspiracy fodder. I can tell they clearly think that when election season comes around that much of the US will forget all this happening, they'll try and put on the smarmy pedant hat again making that hilarious face Hillary would make every time Trump went after her. These people are clearly as aloof as aloof gets, and it looks like it'll take some losing for them to get back in touch with much of the country they're thumbing their noses at. Or they can just wait out the 8 year cycle until getting elected merely because people will be fed up with Trump the same way they were of Bush and Obama.

I really think this is the strategy of the DNC/Left.  They do not want a conclusion to any investigation, they just want an investigation that they can drag on as long as they can.  Certainly to 2018, but maybe to 2020 as well with Hillary at the top of their ticket again.  They can market it as 'see she didn't get a fair shake last time because of Trump and the Russians'.  Of course, they may need to buy Bernie another house on the beach.  

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I really think this is the strategy of the DNC/Left.  They do not want a conclusion to any investigation, they just want an investigation that they can drag on as long as they can.  Certainly to 2018, but maybe to 2020 as well with Hillary at the top of their ticket again.  They can market it as 'see she didn't get a fair shake last time because of Trump and the Russians'.  Of course, they may need to buy Bernie another house on the beach.  

It's perfect marketing fodder for the left who think of Comey's firing akin to Nixon. (perpetually keeping useless people in a cabinet merely because they're doing perpetual investigations)

 

"Impeachment right around the corner!"

 

Let me know how that goes.

 

Social justice and the Constitution are not gonna see eye to eye, once again, and I have a bag of popcorn just waiting for the lefts reaction when they get put back in their place.

Edited May 11, 2017 by IAMX

[jg121783 3,915]

13 hours ago, ccneat said:

I keep hearing  ratholing on Comeys performance and how much Trump supporters are in chorus lock step with liberals in calling for Comeys dismissal.  I am glad to see you agree with the MDL on at least something.  

 

I dont know what Grabien or Grabem news so I don't know what you think a good news source is but I dont need a virus on this computer.

 

The President is lying....we all know what this is about..it is about the Russian investigation, even if there is only smoke and it is about loyalty to the President.  You may be drinking the coolaid on this because you draw some sort of comfort from backing up the President...good for you.

 

 I don't know what this is all about, whether there was or wasnt collusion, whether Flynn and Stone were feeding details back to their Russian paymasters...that is it the role of the FBI to investigate BUT I do know that Trump acts like he is Putins  ( Take a look at the actions today)  and the president refuses to dispel the smoke.  

 

 I refuse to be treated like an idiot. You may enjoy being snowed, I do not. 

 

In other words you have no arguments to present against the points raised in the article. You could have just said that and simplified your wall of text.

[bcking 3,157]

13 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I have said more than once that Comey should have been fired right away and Trump used bad judgement in going out of his way to give Comey and others a chance to correct their behavior. I guess Trump is naive in a way for not seeing the sheer corruption in DC and not understanding some of these corrupt individuals will not change. It has been a learning curve for him in that respect but he is learning now. You still haven't addressed any of the issues raised in the article related to Comey's incompetence so let's try to get back on topic here.

My problem isn't that Trump gave Comey a chance to 'correct his behavior'...

 

He praised Comey's behavior when it was "politically expediant"  for Trump. He talked Comey up as being such a great guy, and how he had "redeemed' himself after the Hillary stuff. Then he suddenly changes his mind conveniently now.

 

I agree Comey should have been out before, and honestly a Presidential transition would have been the perfect opportunity. Trump was clearly "okay" with how Comey works as long as it was all in Trump's personal best interest. I don't see this as "He gave Comey a chance", I see it as "Comey was good to him so he was fine, now Comey is less good to him so he wants him out".

Edited May 11, 2017 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

16 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

In other words you have no arguments to present against the points raised in the article. You could have just said that and simplified your wall of text.

Sorry did not know too many words was an issue.  

 

You want me to read some BS and come up with arguments to rebut that BS and then you can pick apart my arguments.  Why don't you just make your points?  I don't really  have the energy to go back and look the article up...reading these words is wearing me down.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas.  That is my proof.  Why are they digging into a political opponent?  They are not the DOJ, so why are they doing this.  Add to that all the other political activities of the last administration, the view becomes clearer unless one has their head in the sand.    I realize this doesn't matter to the MDL, but what the heck, let's keep investigating, maybe we can get an indictment for Susan Rice.  I am sure President Obama was sufficienctly shielded.

 

As to Feinstein, do you mean she was simply saying she did not have any evidence in her possession?  Seems a stretch to be so literal, but if it helps in the apologies for the Left, then so be it!

for sure, lets find out what the hell is going on ...we are in violent agreement that the investigations need to keep rolling.

[bcking 3,157]

53 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

In other words you have no arguments to present against the points raised in the article. You could have just said that and simplified your wall of text.

You have a very loose definition of the term "wall of text". (I by loose I mean you aren't using it properly)

 

That is usually refering to a post where the person does not include any line breaks and/or has poor sentence structure. A post with normal sentence structure and adequate line breaks is not a wall of text.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

43 minutes ago, bcking said:

You have a very loose definition of the term "wall of text". (I by loose I mean you aren't using it properly)

 

That is usually refering to a post where the person does not include any line breaks and/or has poor sentence structure. A post with normal sentence structure and adequate line breaks is not a wall of text.

 

Wall of Text = > 140 characters.  #readingisfundamental

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

My problem isn't that Trump gave Comey a chance to 'correct his behavior'...

 

He praised Comey's behavior when it was "politically expediant"  for Trump. He talked Comey up as being such a great guy, and how he had "redeemed' himself after the Hillary stuff. Then he suddenly changes his mind conveniently now.

 

I agree Comey should have been out before, and honestly a Presidential transition would have been the perfect opportunity. Trump was clearly "okay" with how Comey works as long as it was all in Trump's personal best interest. I don't see this as "He gave Comey a chance", I see it as "Comey was good to him so he was fine, now Comey is less good to him so he wants him out".

He's under Trump's cabinet so even with the argument and scenario you put forth its still perfectly acceptable to get rid of anyone in a Presidents cabinet even if he merely doesn't like the way they do things. Being a hypocrite (which I think we've easily established he's being, with the FBI itself also fed up with Comey) doesn't make it any less his right. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

He's under Trump's cabinet so even with the argument and scenario you put forth its still perfectly acceptable to get rid of anyone in a Presidents cabinet even if he merely doesn't like the way they do things. 

Of course it's acceptable. But then Trump has to admit that he is firing Comey for his CURRENT behavior over the past few weeks. He had no problem with how Comey handled things up until after he became President. If that is the case, it is no wonder people and saying it seems a little suspicious considering the Russian investigation. If it's not that, what else does Trump not like about Comey's CURRENT behavior?

 

They tried to partly pin it on Comey's behavior during the election. Trump praised him for that. He can't pretend otherwise.

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course it's acceptable. But then Trump has to admit that he is firing Comey for his CURRENT behavior over the past few weeks. He had no problem with how Comey handled things up until after he became President. If that is the case, it is no wonder people and saying it seems a little suspicious considering the Russian investigation. If it's not that, what else does Trump not like about Comey's CURRENT behavior?

 

They tried to partly pin it on Comey's behavior during the election. Trump praised him for that. He can't pretend otherwise.

Given the statements by the FBI Trump saying he's only firing Comey because of your criteria would be itself a lie. 

 

I can see the obvious suspicion it arises and don't fault anyone for having it at face value. However with regard to the Nixon Watergate situation Trump 1) hasn't halted the FBI investigation, the one that's been going on for a year already without a shred of proof on any of the claims made against him yet, and 2) cannot halt the Senate investigation. So with regard to a special investigation, it seems like adding this on top of the other two would really make this a circus. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

Given the statements by the FBI Trump saying he's only firing Comey because of your criteria would be itself a lie. 

 

I can see the obvious suspicion it arises and don't fault anyone for having it at face value. However with regard to the Nixon Watergate situation Trump 1) hasn't halted the FBI investigation, the one that's been going on for a year already without a shred of proof on any of the claims made against him yet, and 2) cannot halt the Senate investigation. 

I agree with you about Watergate, I see this as very different and no where near as severe.

 

This story is obviously evolving, so what statements from the FBI are you referring to? Last I heard from the FBI was the new Acting Head saying that most people at the FBI had great respect for Comey and didn't have an issue with him, despite the White House claiming otherwise.