• 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!

Comey edits revealed: Remarks on Clinton probe were watered down, documents show

I have said this before. There are two different sets of rules when it comes to handling the nations secrets. One set for the Washington insiders and the other for the rest of us.

THis is why all of these people need to be held accountable and arrested for obstruction of justice.
We are either a nation of laws or a nation of people do whatever the hell they want.
 
lol, there's no evidence of corruption here.

My guess is that if this were in the reverse, and we were talking about a SP team investigating a President Hillary, and that team was having revealed text's and make up of the team that showed a clear anti Hillary bias, your response would be totally different.
 
I would assume there is none because classified material remains classified material until it is deemed unclassified. For example, in the early nineteenth century our government went dark. The first time something substantial was released (leaked) since then was in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers; and it blew the lid off of the Vietnam War (between Truman and Johnson). But Ellsberg (the leaker) was almost immediately charged (and later dismissed) because of Watergate. I don't know if Ellsberg could be charged in 2010 (the Pentagon Papers were only unclassified in 2011).

But the material itself has to be unclassified no matter how old it is. One can't scrub through the archives and leak something from World War I.

Ok, so that should put to rest any of this "Hillary is not President" crap...Wouldn't you agree that if she demonstrated clear "gross negligence" which is the standard legally, and what the original draft said, that she should face the justice system for that crime?

However, the country is full of media outlets. Why is Fox the only one that cares?

Because our news media outlets have given up on actual journalistic standards, and opted for political activism...That includes FNS...The difference is that while you choose to believe the overwhelming activist journalism which leans to the left, which is literally every single one other than FNS, doesn't mean that what Fox is showing is false....

I tend to smell exaggerated trash when only Fox cares. Especially when the tactics on the linked FOX website presents a big picture of Hillary Clinton next to a big picture of Comey. Why did Fox find it necessary to present a blown up picture of Hilary Clinton to its readers? Have they forgotten what she looks like? And the article reads like commentary. It's typical propaganda.

And CNN isn't? MSNBC isn't? Give me a break....Comey is the thread that was pulled to unravel this ball of crap in protecting Hillary from prosecution....That's why the side by side....

Because they know that this is the typical fluff of Fox News. It's like criticizing the National Enquirer. Is there really even a point in it anymore?

So, you see no problem in the actual double standard of justice being displayed in Clinton's case...Got it...
 
No, it's just a non-story. This red lined Word document holds no legal basis and doesn't mean anything.

The story is how many of these bad actors will end up with a criminal record.

You do realize what Strzok, Paige, McCabe, Comey, Ohr and his wife did is criminal?

They swore an oath. It was to uphold the law, not subvert it.

Theirs wasn’t an oath to the Democrat Partei, nor Hillary Clinton. It was an oath to upholding the law, not subverting it.

Once again, Democrats go after Trump, and we learn they’re the criminal elements. The Democrat boomerang strikes again.

It also opens the door wide open to Hillary, Huma, Mills & Co.
 
The story is how many of these bad actors will end up with a criminal record.

You do realize what Strzok, Paige, McCabe, Comey, Ohr and his wife did is criminal?

They swore an oath. It was to uphold the law, not subvert it.

Theirs wasn’t an oath to the Democrat Partei, nor Hillary Clinton. It was an oath to upholding the law, not subverting it.

Once again, Democrats go after Trump, and we learn they’re the criminal elements. The Democrat boomerang strikes again.

It also opens the door wide open to Hillary, Huma, Mills & Co.

About the same number that will be fired (as opposed to getting a lateral transfer or title change).
 
I would assume there is none because classified material remains classified material until it is deemed unclassified. For example, in the early nineteenth century our government went dark. The first time something substantial was released (leaked) since then was in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers; and it blew the lid off of the Vietnam War (between Truman and Johnson). But Ellsberg (the leaker) was almost immediately charged (and later dismissed) because of Watergate. I don't know if Ellsberg could be charged in 2010 (the Pentagon Papers were only unclassified in 2011).

But the material itself has to be unclassified no matter how old it is. One can't scrub through the archives and leak something from World War I.

However, the country is full of media outlets. Why is Fox the only one that cares? I tend to smell exaggerated trash when only Fox cares. Especially when the tactics on the linked FOX website presents a big picture of Hillary Clinton next to a big picture of Comey. Why did Fox find it necessary to present a blown up picture of Hilary Clinton to its readers? Have they forgotten what she looks like? And the article reads like commentary. It's typical propaganda.

Here is some information on the subject. "Espionage Statute of Limitations
Although federal statute USC 3282 provides for a five-year statute of limitation for the vast majority of federal crimes, this statute of limitations does not necessarily stand in the case of espionage prosecution. It is generally agreed by legal scholars that acts of espionage can be prosecuted for at least ten years after the alleged act. Certain executive acts and extenuating factors may provide for prosecution after an even longer period of time."
https://www.federalcharges.com/espionage-laws-charges/
 
lol, there's no evidence of corruption here.

Lol ! There's SO much evidence of corruption here.

Where to start ? The Obama DOJ conspired with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton and the DNC to conduct anti-Trump opposition research

Fusion GPS admits to hiring demoted Obama DOJ officials wife to conduct anti-Trump opposition research..
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...wife-nellie-ohr-hired-to-probe-trump.amp.html

The Obama FBI used that Democrat funded opposition research to obtain FISA warrants to unmask and surveill the Trump campaign prior to a Presidential election.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html

You know whats hillarious ? Democrats are the ones who demanded the DOJ conduct the IG probe that revealed the damning text messages of Peter Sztrok ( led the pre-Mueller Russia investigation ) and Lisa Page...Lol !

Yup, they claimed there was Hillary bias at Sessions DOJ and they wanted to root it out, and mow theyre attacking Rosenstein for revealing the text messages
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...general-investigation-zeroes-in-on-fbi-video/
 
People revise rough drafts as the circumstances change? Wha!?! Outrage!!

You guys are funny. lol
 
Here is some information on the subject. "Espionage Statute of Limitations
Although federal statute USC 3282 provides for a five-year statute of limitation for the vast majority of federal crimes, this statute of limitations does not necessarily stand in the case of espionage prosecution. It is generally agreed by legal scholars that acts of espionage can be prosecuted for at least ten years after the alleged act. Certain executive acts and extenuating factors may provide for prosecution after an even longer period of time."
https://www.federalcharges.com/espionage-laws-charges/

Thanks Sarge....My general point in asking MSgt about that, was that at some point in this conversation, usually when the liberal side of the argument starts loosing said argument, is that "Hillary didn't win", or is not involved in Government anymore...While that is true, she is NOT out of the window to be prosecuted for the crimes she committed while in office.
 
About the same number that will be fired (as opposed to getting a lateral transfer or title change).

Wasn’t Strzok transferred to Human Resources? He should have his ass booted.
 
People revise rough drafts as the circumstances change? Wha!?! Outrage!!

You guys are funny. lol

You don;t have the editor also running an “insurance policy” against the potential President, should he be elected... or teaming with others in the Bureau, or be praised for being in place to be a political operative.

Believe me... Democrats in the know are not laughing.
 
Comey has a problem. He wrote his memo 2-months before interviewing Clinton.



Also interesting is how 5 Clinton cronies got immunity and Clinton didn’t have to answer her questions under oath.

It’s obvious the FBI had been politicized, and this Strzok guy seems to have his fingers in all of it. Then there’s Comey, McCabe, and the babe Strzok was shagging.

Did you see the news the other day that revealed that Mueller was granted a waiver for any conflict-of-interest when he was appointed Special Counsel by Rosenstein?

What is the point of a Special Counsel with a conflict of interest waiver?
 
People revise rough drafts as the circumstances change? Wha!?! Outrage!!

You guys are funny. lol

By " revise " you mean water down Comeys draft exonerating Hillary Clinton that was completed months before she and her staff were interviewed ?
 
Wasn’t Strzok transferred to Human Resources? He should have his ass booted.

Exactly, but that (simple reassignment) served the purpose of having "taken appropriate action" as far as Mueller and Rosenstein are concerned but, of course, ignores previous actions taken by Strzok based on that obvious bias. The big picture problem is that we must depend on "leaks" to know why he was even shuffled around. We the sheeple are supposed to accept that some "internal investigation" is going to clear this mess up.
 
Did you see the news the other day that revealed that Mueller was granted a waiver for any conflict-of-interest when he was appointed Special Counsel by Rosenstein?

What is the point of a Special Counsel with a conflict of interest waiver?

I would guess this all has to do with the conversation in "Andy's" office where they were discussing "the path"
 
By " revise " you mean water down Comeys draft exonerating Hillary Clinton that was completed months before she and her staff were interviewed ?

Yep, because deciding which cases to prosecute is (has become?) the job of the FBI. The AG is simply a figurehead which explains why Sessions does not simply take the evidence of "gross negligence" to a grand jury.
 
You don;t have the editor also running an “insurance policy” against the potential President, should he be elected... or teaming with others in the Bureau, or be praised for being in place to be a political operative.

Believe me... Democrats in the know are not laughing.

It's just funny watching you guys deflect from the obvious corruption of your boy in the White House. Multiple guilty pleas, multiple high-ranking officials forced out of office, multiple indictments likely still pending, and you guys are parsing Comey's draft edits, desperately fishing for a something to distract.

Good luck, guys. The day Trump gets taken away in handcuffs will become a national holiday decades from now.
 
By " revise " you mean water down Comeys draft exonerating Hillary Clinton that was completed months before she and her staff were interviewed ?

The investigation changed his interpretation. Makes perfect sense. It makes very little sense to insist on no revisions of a draft written before the interviews, right?
 
Lol ! There's SO much evidence of corruption here.

Where to start ? The Obama DOJ conspired with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton and the DNC to conduct anti-Trump opposition research

Actually, I have some time at work, so yes, let's start.

Fusion GPS admits to hiring demoted Obama DOJ officials wife to conduct anti-Trump opposition research..
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...wife-nellie-ohr-hired-to-probe-trump.amp.html

The allegation here is that Bruce Ohr and his wife were hired by these firms to conduct anti-Trump research. A couple issues I have with this. First off, the Justice Department is headed by Jeff Sessions. Bruce Ohr never lost his job; he was just performing two senior functions at the Justice Department and is now performing one. If there was an issue here, why wouldn't Sessions do something about it? After all he's on your side in this whole thing, right? Why would he still be working at the Justice Department if he did something deemed super serious? You don't think they'd fire him if he committed a serious ethical violation such as you are alleging? The right wing media paints this as a "demotion" but he's the director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces which is a major title. Also, the claim that he was "demoted" to one position because of this meeting with Steel is pure conjecture. If Sessions believed he did something serious, he wouldn't have him heading up one of his highest priority programs in the department.

By the way, you can see that Fox has resorted to lying about the reasoning behind Ohr's reclassification. In one article they claim that, while the Justice Department never provided a reason for the classification, that Ohr met with Steele during the election. In this article, Fox is speculating that the reasoning for the reclassification was the meeting, yet nobody has ever corroborated that. It is simply Mr. Rosen hypothesizing as to the reason.

In the article you linked, they explicitly stated that "Bruce Ohr, was demoted at the DOJ last week for concealing his meetings with the same company [FusionGPS]". Talk about sloppy reporting! Mr. Gibson in this article seems to be very confused. Mr. Rosen, less than a week prior, had hypothesized that Ohr was reclassified because of his meeting with Steele. Mr. Gibson avers that Ohr was reclassified because of his meeting with FusionGPS! So a guess by Mr. Rosen is now a statement of fact by Mr. Gibson. Yet they can't even keep who he met with straight. Steele or Fusion?

But let's get back on track here. Nellie Ohr supposedly worked for Fusion. Well, sorry, this isn't a crime. The wife of a government administrator doing contracting work for a private company isn't a conflict of interest even. And you can't provide the scope of services provided or even state the type of work she did, who she did it for, or what she was compensated for.

The Obama FBI used that Democrat funded opposition research to obtain FISA warrants to unmask and surveill the Trump campaign prior to a Presidential election.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html

The Fusion document indeed was opposition research funded by Clinton campaign associates. But hey, surprise, it was also funded by Republicans. The dossier in no way is some special thing. What's special, in your mind, is that you're connecting the creation of this opposition research with an FBI conspiracy to take down Trump. That's such a ridiculous stretch it's laughable. Despite the fact that The Ohr's relationship does nothing to help your case as I've outlined above, the best you could argue is that the FBI used this information to solicit a FISA warrant and that this somehow proves the FBI ("Obama's FBI" as you call it) was conspiring against Trump.

Here's the funny thing. What started off as normal oppo research - by Republicans first, then Democrats - turned into something much larger. Steele himself said that it "was something of huge significance, way above party politics." So he risked getting sued by FusionGPS to contact the FBI.
 
The FBI, in due course, as Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said, in response to your conspiracy theory buddies in congress, has stated, openly and proudly, that they do take such information seriously, but that any information provided as a basis for a FISA warrant would first be vetted as to its veracity.

So basically your claim in a nutshell, is that the Clinton's funded this document trash talking Trump via FusionGPS, that the State Department was involved in it somehow (through the Ohr's and Lynch I'm guessing you think), that "Obama's FBI" then used this "fake news" document to obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on Trump. Is that about it? Unfortunately it makes no sense at all. The Ohr's add no strength to your case, the Justice Department is controlled by Trump's appointees Sessions and Rosenstein who have not uncovered any evidence of such a conspiracy, nor has Trump's appointee Christopher Wray who oversee's the FBI, and Rosenstein openly stated that he has no problem, in theory, from taking claims from documents like the Steele dossier and using it as a basis for a FISA warrant application as long as the information has been properly vetted and determined to be legitimate by agents.

In reality what most likely happened, was that the Clinton campaign and Republicans financed FusionGPS's work, who hired Steele to gather intelligence. Steele found information concerning enough to approach the FBI, the FBI investigated and determined the intelligence or portions thereof had sufficient basis to be cause for concern, took information that they were able to verify and used it to file a FISA warrant and commenced their investigation. And that the Ohr's had nothing to do with it.
 
I notice not a lot of libs responding to this story....Hmmm, they must all be waiting to hear Maddow give them their talking points.

That's because they all responded to the first thread on this matter with the identical subject line and link that digsbe started yesterday and Zimmer missed this morning because the Clinton Derangement Syndrome has made his eyes goes bad.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/304132-comey-edits-revealed-remarks-clinton-probe-were-watered-down-documents-show.html
 
The FBI, in due course, as Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said, in response to your conspiracy theory buddies in congress, has stated, openly and proudly, that they do take such information seriously, but that any information provided as a basis for a FISA warrant would first be vetted as to its veracity.

So basically your claim in a nutshell, is that the Clinton's funded this document trash talking Trump via FusionGPS, that the State Department was involved in it somehow (through the Ohr's and Lynch I'm guessing you think), that "Obama's FBI" then used this "fake news" document to obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on Trump. Is that about it? Unfortunately it makes no sense at all. The Ohr's add no strength to your case, the Justice Department is controlled by Trump's appointees Sessions and Rosenstein who have not uncovered any evidence of such a conspiracy, nor has Trump's appointee Christopher Wray who oversee's the FBI, and Rosenstein openly stated that he has no problem, in theory, from taking claims from documents like the Steele dossier and using it as a basis for a FISA warrant application as long as the information has been properly vetted and determined to be legitimate by agents.

In reality what most likely happened, was that the Clinton campaign and Republicans financed FusionGPS's work, who hired Steele to gather intelligence. Steele found information concerning enough to approach the FBI, the FBI investigated and determined the intelligence or portions thereof had sufficient basis to be cause for concern, took information that they were able to verify and used it to file a FISA warrant and commenced their investigation. And that the Ohr's had nothing to do with it.


So Peter Sztrok, who was demoted from acting head of the FBIs counter intelligence division to human rescources and is under a current IG investigation objectively vetted the contents of the dossier ?

Your'e kiding, right ? The guy that discussed needing a " insurance policy " in McAbes office because " they " couldnt risk Trump winning ?

Over a year of investigations haven't been able to vet the contents of the dossier, but Sztrok who met with Steele in July of 2016, submitted his first FISA application almost immediately after being briefed on the dossiers contents

Do you think anti- Hillary opposition research funded by the Trump campaign and the GOP would have been given the same consideration by Obama's DOJ ? Because NO ONE else does.

And Bruce Ohr was acting assistant deputy AG under the Obama administration, who was demoted for his meetings with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson but did nothing wrong ?
 
The FBI, in due course, as Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said, in response to your conspiracy theory buddies in congress, has stated, openly and proudly, that they do take such information seriously, but that any information provided as a basis for a FISA warrant would first be vetted as to its veracity.

So basically your claim in a nutshell, is that the Clinton's funded this document trash talking Trump via FusionGPS, that the State Department was involved in it somehow (through the Ohr's and Lynch I'm guessing you think), that "Obama's FBI" then used this "fake news" document to obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on Trump. Is that about it? Unfortunately it makes no sense at all. The Ohr's add no strength to your case, the Justice Department is controlled by Trump's appointees Sessions and Rosenstein who have not uncovered any evidence of such a conspiracy, nor has Trump's appointee Christopher Wray who oversee's the FBI, and Rosenstein openly stated that he has no problem, in theory, from taking claims from documents like the Steele dossier and using it as a basis for a FISA warrant application as long as the information has been properly vetted and determined to be legitimate by agents.

In reality what most likely happened, was that the Clinton campaign and Republicans financed FusionGPS's work, who hired Steele to gather intelligence. Steele found information concerning enough to approach the FBI, the FBI investigated and determined the intelligence or portions thereof had sufficient basis to be cause for concern, took information that they were able to verify and used it to file a FISA warrant and commenced their investigation. And that the Ohr's had nothing to do with it.

Republicans didnt finance the dossier, thats a LIE

The dossier must be pretty toxic if you people are willing to lie about its origins
 
The investigation changed his interpretation. Makes perfect sense. It makes very little sense to insist on no revisions of a draft written before the interviews, right?

No, people like Peter Sztrok changed his interpretation when they edited a draft exonerting Hillary that was written months before she and her cronies were interviewed
 
Back
Top Bottom