• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI Texts Reveal Anti-Trump, Pro-Clinton Comments

Chomsky said:
I'm late to this thread, but it seems to me some are making an argument based upon a dislike of some of the prosecutors' political persuasions, rather than an argument based upon the facts of the individual matters themselves.

Who cares what the politics are, if they act legally and appropriately. To think we should only be judged by members of our own political party, is freaking insane. This is becoming "party before country". :doh
Click to expand...

The facts are: agents used their authority to spy in a presidential campaign.
 
It seems that republicans love leaks now. I wonder what changed?
 
iliveonramen said:
Then prosecute the guy, investigate him through Congress...whatever.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly..And we shall see in the time to come if there is investigation of this circus.'

Congress itself is a DOJ watchdog. They have oversight power of the DOJ. What I'm against is this idea that Dem equals unable to investigate Trump. I'm against not liking Trump means you can't be on the investigation.
Click to expand...

DoJ, and the FBI are stonewalling Congress. So, I think the only way to get to the bottom of this is going to be another Special Counsel to look into this.

If there are noticeable issues showing he's not doing his job that is a big deal.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it is "noticeable" when there is a meeting in the Deputy AG's office where the players highlighted in these texts, are talking about a "path" should Trump be elected, or that they "can't take that risk"?

Of course, when it comes put up or shut up time Republican Congress members that show up on Fox News to state these abuses of power of the DOJ go back to the hill and do nothing.
Click to expand...

And most of this stuff has come to light in the past week. Congress doesn't act at the speed of light that's for sure...But, I agree that Republican's seem to be just horrible at governing. Let's hope that we get to the bottom of this 'holdover corruption' and cleanse our justice branch of it so that the fine people that work in those institutions can be trusted again...One thing for sure Obama sure F*ed up these institutions that were supposed to be A-political.
 
j-mac said:
This jerk went easy on Clinton, and Co....While doing everything including threatening Flynn's son to extract a guilty plea on a BS charge...It ain't over yet, but when it is, we shall talk....That is if I can find you, and drag a post out of you that actually means something useful.
Click to expand...

Insulting me does not invent evidence that will now convict Clinton of anything. You have nothing except your own vitriol. Your opinion that they went easy is not evidence of anything except your own partisan vitriol.
 
haymarket said:
Insulting me does not invent evidence that will now convict Clinton of anything. You have nothing except your own vitriol. Your opinion that they went easy is not evidence of anything except your own partisan vitriol.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, Comey did a pretty good summary of all the illegal things that Hillary did with her email server, even if he didn't arrive at the correct conclusion, per Strzok's creative editing. I have a feeling that the pre-edited text was far more accurate than the post-edited text.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, to be honest, Comey did a pretty good summary of all the illegal things that Hillary did with her email server, even if he didn't arrive at the correct conclusion, per Strzok's creative editing. I have a feeling that the pre-edited text was far more accurate than the post-edited text.
Click to expand...

If you have six bucks to go with that feeling you can get a nice holiday flavored cup of designer coffee probably in cup with holly on it.
 
Absentglare said:
Allusion to an undemonstrated appeal to popularity fallacy. What a pathetically weak and stupid case.

Of course, FBI agents are allowed to have political beliefs. The idea that they cannot do their job if they have any beliefs is absurd, it's an attack on professionalism, itself.
Click to expand...

I asked for clarification and you post stupid ****. Why am I not surprised? You sure assume some idiotic ****. I never mad any case in the post you quoted.

Here is a post from me two days ago:
NonoBadDog said:
You again, stupidly assume what is going on in my world. I expect everyone to have an opinion. I also expect them to perform their jobs as if tho they didn't have an opinion when working in an investigation, without conflicts of interest.

There are clearly signs that make even the IG and the DOJ suspicious that those conflicts of interest exist. There are 27 investigations into leaks from the DOJ and FBI. There is an investigation being done by the IG of Strovk, Page and Ohr. The texts didn't help make the situation look any better.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
It seems that republicans love leaks now. I wonder what changed?
Click to expand...

Yeah, their uranium story didn't work so this is their new fake dogwhistle....
 
haymarket said:
If you have six bucks to go with that feeling you can get a nice holiday flavored cup of designer coffee probably in cup with holly on it.
Click to expand...

Until another special counsel investigates the Mueller staff and reviews the Hillary email case, evidence and conclusions, we won't really know.

As of right now, Mueller, by picking these biased people for this team, as well as the investigation they've produced, are seriously tainted and have damaged credibility in the eyes of the electorate. How to over come that, now that's the million dollar question, isn't it?
 
MovingPictures said:
So all of these texts were made before they were on the special counsel?

#NothingBurger
Click to expand...

Actually it does matter, would you think it fair if you were being investigated by folks that can’t stad you. Would it be fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
Until another special counsel investigates the Mueller staff and reviews the Hillary email case, evidence and conclusions, we won't really know.

As of right now, Mueller, by picking these biased people for this team, as well as the investigation they've produced, are seriously tainted and have damaged credibility in the eyes of the electorate. How to over come that, now that's the million dollar question, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that the FBI agent let go from the investigation did anything that abused his power or role with the investigation?

So how is that expensive cup of joe?
 
NonoBadDog said:
I asked for clarification and you post stupid ****. Why am I not surprised? You sure assume some idiotic ****. I never mad any case in the post you quoted.

Here is a post from me two days ago:
Click to expand...

Republicans are engaged in a smear campaign of Mueller. This sways public opinion since republican constituents are so reliably gullible.

You seem to think this actually throws Mueller's credibility into jeopardy, which it certainly doesn't. If anything, it shows that republicans are scared of his competence and what that competence will expose.

Now, perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the appeal to popularity fallacy so you can understand why your poll was an ineffective way to try to call Mueller's credibility into question.
 
Absentglare said:
Republicans are engaged in a smear campaign of Mueller. This sways public opinion since republican constituents are so reliably gullible.

You seem to think this actually throws Mueller's credibility into jeopardy, which it certainly doesn't. If anything, it shows that republicans are scared of his competence and what that competence will expose.

Now, perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the appeal to popularity fallacy so you can understand why your poll was an ineffective way to try to call Mueller's credibility into question.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post. It went right over your head. How cute. I'll tell you what, unless you post something that is halfway intelligent I won't respond from this point on.
 
Absentglare said:
Allusion to an undemonstrated appeal to popularity fallacy. What a pathetically weak and stupid case.

Of course, FBI agents are allowed to have political beliefs. The idea that they cannot do their job if they have any beliefs is absurd, it's an attack on professionalism, itself.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is the red herring fallacy - that was not the reason that Strzok was removed from his duties under Mueller.
 
haymarket said:
Do you have any evidence that the FBI agent let go from the investigation did anything that abused his power or role with the investigation?

So how is that expensive cup of joe?
Click to expand...

I think that this sums it up about as well as anything.


What happens when people who are supposed to cure the conflict of interest have even greater conflicts of interest than those they replace?



1:39 PM - 13 Dec 2017
Click to expand...
 
NonoBadDog said:
You didn't read my post. It went right over your head. How cute. I'll tell you what, unless you post something that is halfway intelligent I won't respond from this point on.
Click to expand...

No, i read and understood your post. You seem to have no idea what's going on.

Here, let me explain it to you, you said:

NonoBadDog said:
Not so fast:

Mueller, FBI face crisis in public confidence



Mueller, FBI face crisis in public confidence | TheHill

Things are changing fast as we learn more.
Click to expand...

Your claim is that Mueller is facing a crisis in public confidence. I called that an appeal to popularity fallacy (since you're meaning to suggest that his credibility is in question).

The poster who replied to you in #302 explained that your source misrepresented the poll question, specifically, it broadened the poll question so as to make the assertion "Mueller, FBI face crisis in public confidence" NOT supported. This is why i said you were alluding to an undemonstrated appeal to popularity fallacy by asking the question so as to suggest that the public doubted Mueller's credibility:

NonoBadDog said:
Let me see if I understand your premise. Do you think that the majority of the public believes that there is no conflict of interest in the way this investigation has proceeded?
Click to expand...

So you moved your own goalposts, desperately trying to allude to an undemonstrated appeal to popularity fallacy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is the red herring fallacy - that was not the reason that Strzok was removed from his duties under Mueller.
Click to expand...

We don't know why he was removed- do we? The FBI probably cannot comment on that. I suppose the DOJ could have illegally leaked that, too?
 
haymarket said:
Insulting me does not invent evidence that will now convict Clinton of anything. You have nothing except your own vitriol. Your opinion that they went easy is not evidence of anything except your own partisan vitriol.
Click to expand...

I was just saying how you tend to disappear when proven wrong....That's all...And funny stuff you acting all sensitive and stuff...puhleeze.
 
Absentglare said:
We don't know why he was removed- do we? The FBI probably cannot comment on that. I suppose the DOJ could have illegally leaked that, too?
Click to expand...

I know it's confusing, here let my rep. sort it out for you....

 
I've reviewed their texts and found nothing that is not factually accurate. Donald Trump is a loathsome douche who should not be President.
 
j-mac said:
I was just saying how you tend to disappear when proven wrong....That's all...And funny stuff you acting all sensitive and stuff...puhleeze.
Click to expand...

By all means ,step forward and present an example of this claim where I disappear when proven wrong.
 
eohrnberger said:
Bush hold overs? Citation please.

So are telling what Stzok, his lover, and McCabe was protecting the constitution?

Aww come on!

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

These people are career FBI. They are not political nor political appointees. They are not doing a political job. They may have political opinions, but their mission is to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitution. At least somebody is trying to do that.

Strzok has been with the FBI for 25+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

This whole line of attack is ridiculous. Frankly, I thought our electorate was more savvy and educated to fall for this. Then again, I thought they were more savvy and educated to fall for Trump.

It appears to be Trump, the Republican party and his idiot minions that are waging the full assault on the rule of law and the US Constitution but attempting to undermine core institutions of law and justice. This is rather outrageous. I thought Trump was the biggest existential threat to America, but the Republican party seems to be a willing and ignorant accomplice.

We are living in sad and scary times.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Did you miss the recent congressional committee questioning on that matter?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...muellers-russia-probe-called-trump/946913001/
Click to expand...

?

Can you please explain to me why you think they fired him if not for communicating political opinions?

In a statement released on Dec. 2, Sessions said the allegations that Strzok sent anti-Trump communications "would raise serious questions of public trust" if proven to be true. "We will ensure that anyone who works on any investigation in the Department of Justice does so objectively and free from bias or favoritism," Sessions said.
Click to expand...

Sessions is literally suggesting that criticizing the president makes one unable to do unbiased work: which is to say that the authoritarian administration demands strict political conformity and will remove anyone who is critical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom