• 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!

Hillary... Feinstein... vs Trump... the 2-tier justice system

I don't.

The latest story is that the case started with George P's conversation with some foreign dignitary in a London bar, but even that's rather fuzzy as there were action taken previous to this, if I'm not mistaken. But the actual starting point, the FBI's 'Paragraph One' - the reasoning for the start of the investigation, hasn't come to public light, and I rather doubt that it ever will.

I feel that the beginnings of the investigation were in the bias of the folks who were in charge. Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page all seem to have harbored very odd ideas on what their job responsibilities entailed.

I find it odd that Strzok was at the center of all of this as one, single individual in a bureau that employs well over 100,000 people. Was everyone else on leave?

If this is true, what else must be true?

In this case, the "If this is true" part is simply if this investigation started on this flimsy evidence, then there must be something else that was the starting point.

We know that the investigation was started and we know that the folks responsible for its inception were Trump hating ideologues.

Connecting those dots doesn't seem like a leap of faith.
 
I feel that the beginnings of the investigation were in the bias of the folks who were in charge. Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page all seem to have harbored very odd ideas on what their job responsibilities entailed.

Fair, and probably correct.

This would be captured in the FBI's investigation documentation as 'Paragraph One', the beginning of every case file and investigation documentation, or so has been reported. Thus far, for this case, it's 'Paragraph One' hasn't been made public, that I'm aware of.

I find it odd that Strzok was at the center of all of this as one, single individual in a bureau that employs well over 100,000 people. Was everyone else on leave?

If this is true, what else must be true?

In this case, the "If this is true" part is simply if this investigation started on this flimsy evidence, then there must be something else that was the starting point.

We know that the investigation was started and we know that the folks responsible for its inception were Trump hating ideologues.

Connecting those dots doesn't seem like a leap of faith.

Yet connecting those dots escapes some, surprisingly enough.
 
They tipped off Feinstein about her 20-year spy.

They didn’t warn Trump about potential problems.

Hillary colluded with the Russians and hasn’t been investigated.

Trump was spied on, didn’t collude with the Russians, had the FBI, CIA and DoJ with Obama conspire against him.

Justice is not blind in America. The Left... have been exposed as corrupt.
Trump was spied on, didn’t collude with the Russians, had the FBI, CIA and DoJ with Obama conspire against him.

I have no problem with Trump being vetted. The constitution is too lenient in whom can become President.

I have no problem for the government to vet that America did not elect a spy or a traitor.
 
Reread my post

Same post...

Why is Mueller showing no interest in Hillary who was among the crowd that paid Steele to concoct the fallacious and "unverified" dossier relying on Russian sources?

This whole travesty is shining a very bright light on the IN justice of our "Justice" System. It's also shining a light on the thugs who run it.

Every kid who ever got a ticket for "driving while black" understands this as well as Trump does.

The difference is that Trump has a pretty significant pulpit from which to complain.
 
What's the harm in a little fun? It wasn't serious, and I did take it as what you meant to post, so come on!



As I've posted, this is an unanswerable question, at least by me.
I don't think this question of yours was even posed during the related hearings.
How the hell should I know? Go ask the Trump campaign.

So you can keep asking unanswerable questions if you like, but that doesn't mean you are going to get any answers to them.

So if you recall, we started this back-and-forth when you falsely claimed that the FBI didn't warn the Trump campaign that it was in danger of being infiltrated by Russian agents.

So I asked why the Trump campaign didn't go to the FBI after meeting with Russian agents, which you hilariously attempted to claim that they didn't do so knowingly, and after I showed you evidence that they absolutely knew, my question conveniently becomes "unanswerable."

Okay, since you're unable to answer that question, try this one: why did Trump Jr. lie about the content of the meeting and who was present, why did Trump dictate Jr.'s response about that meeting, and why did he lie about dictating that response?
 
So if you recall, we started this back-and-forth when you falsely claimed that the FBI didn't warn the Trump campaign that it was in danger of being infiltrated by Russian agents.

So I asked why the Trump campaign didn't go to the FBI after meeting with Russian agents, which you hilariously attempted to claim that they didn't do so knowingly, and after I showed you evidence that they absolutely knew, my question conveniently becomes "unanswerable."

Okay, since you're unable to answer that question, try this one: why did Trump Jr. lie about the content of the meeting and who was present, why did Trump dictate Jr.'s response about that meeting, and why did he lie about dictating that response?

I think you have me confused with Zimmer.

They tipped off Feinstein about her 20-year spy.

They didn’t warn Trump about potential problems.

Hillary colluded with the Russians and hasn’t been investigated.

Trump was spied on, didn’t collude with the Russians, had the FBI, CIA and DoJ with Obama conspire against him.

Justice is not blind in America. The Left... have been exposed as corrupt.

My first post what this one.

While I may not agree with the op's instances to support his assertion that there is a 2 tired justice system in the US now, I certainly agree with him that there is a two-tired justice system.

We just have to compare how the FBI handled (mis-handled) the Hillary email investigation and how they've handled (mis-handled) the Trump / Russian collusion investigation.

Just have to ask simple questions like:

What sort of serious FBI investigation:

  • grants nearly all of the subjects immunity? (Hillary's staff including Huma)
  • agrees to allow an attorney (Huma) to be present in an investigation's subject's (Hillary) interview, when that same attorney is a subject of the investigation?
  • does not add to the charges the destruction of subpoenaed evidence after they've been subpoenaed? (mobile devices, server wiping, etc.) (TheHill)
  • The FBI on one hand states that "the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements" and then on the other hand exonerates the main subject of the investigation of all criminality? (TheHill)
  • The FBI drafts an exoneration memo before even interviewing while evidence was still outstanding and hadn't bene examined? (TheHill)
So, yes, there is now a two-tired justice system here in the US, which may have been formerly blind to the accused but is no longer so, but its not because of the reasons the Op lists. More so because of the irregularities (and many more) that are listed above.
 
I think you have me confused with Zimmer.



My first post what this one.

True, it's easy to get you two confused with each other. That said, you agreed with the essence of his post, claiming that the FBI they've "(mis-handled) the Trump / Russian collusion investigation." So a few questions in response to that:

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?
 
True, it's easy to get you two confused with each other. That said, you agreed with the essence of his post, claiming that the FBI they've "(mis-handled) the Trump / Russian collusion investigation."

Umm. No, I don't think I've weighed in on the investigation itself, but I do have some concerns about:

  • the veracity of the Steele dossier
  • the reliability of its source(s)
  • that the dossier was the result of politically motivated and paid for oppo research (don't you always get what you pay for?)
  • how the dossier seems to have been laundered into the FBI and DOJ, Department of State, and the Senate from multiple angles after the FBI had already decided the source wasn't reliable and severed its relationship with that source
  • who in the FBI made the decision that this source was to be again trusted as a reliable source by the FBI?
  • that it appears no intelligence service or intelligence analyst vetted out the content of this dossier
  • that the dossier was given credibility and an allegedly second source it didn't deserve (Yahoo reporting from the same source)
  • and finally the apparently flawed process that was used to use it as the initiation of a FISA warrant and the extension of that FISA warrant 3 or 4 times
All of these questions aren't really related to Mueller's investigation and its execution, but more so the run-up to the investigation, and I think these are fair and legitimate questions to ask, although, you may not have any answers, which is fine.

So a few questions in response to that:

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?

Again, I think you want to talk to Zimmer about these questions of yours.
 
Again, I think you want to talk to Zimmer about these questions of yours.

These questions were in direct response to your claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation. So again:

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?
 
These questions were in direct response to your claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation. So again:

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?

I've outline my concerns and questions, and you questions aren't part of any of them.

Go beat up on Zimmer, with whom you can have this debate.
 
I've outline my concerns and questions, and you questions aren't part of any of them.

Go beat up on Zimmer, with whom you can have this debate.

Since you're unable to answer my questions, do you retract your statement that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?
 
Since you're unable to answer my questions, do you retract your statement that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?

Quote me where I made that statement. I don't seem to recall making that statement.

I think I've been pretty clear as to which parts in the run up to Mueller's investigation I believe I have legitimate questions and concerns over.
 
Quote me where I made that statement. I don't seem to recall making that statement.

I think I've been pretty clear as to which parts in the run up to Mueller's investigation I believe I have legitimate questions and concerns over.

Sigh. Why do you play these games?

We just have to compare how the FBI...handled (mis-handled) the Trump / Russian collusion investigation.

So since you're unable and unwilling to answer the following questions, are you retracting your statement that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russian collusion investigation?

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?
 
Sigh. Why do you play these games?



So since you're unable and unwilling to answer the following questions, are you retracting your statement that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russian collusion investigation?

1)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment Jr. received an email claiming to offer dirt on Clinton on behalf of the Russian government?

2)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign went to them the moment after the meeting took place?

3)Do you think the Trump campaign could have made the FBI's investigation easier if anybody in the campaign was honest about the meeting instead of continuously lying about it?

4)Do you think the FBI and now the Special Counsel investigation could have been wrapped up in short order if Trump and everybody in his campaign had been forthright in their relations with Russians from the outset? Or do you think hiding the facts of their relationships and lying about them have forced the investigations to be drawn out?

Fair point then. But not to your unanswerable questions.

The miss-handling is clearly present in the bias for Hillary (any excuse to exonerate her) and the bias against Trump, to whit:

Given the two very different standards and handling that the Hillary email investigation and the Trump / Russian collusion investigation its hard not to be concerned at this disparity.

If a investigation starts with a crime and evidence, which leads to a criminal, it is, in fact, a proper criminal investigation.
If a investigation starts with a suspect and looks for evidence of a crime, then its a witch hunt.

If Strzok started with Trump and then investigated for evidence and a crime, that speaks for itself.

Boils down this this unanswered question: "What level of flawed evidence is acceptable, if the investigation subject is the correct one?"

If an obviously politically biased senior FBI director can start an investigation on someone looking for evidence and crimes (rather than the other way around) . . .

If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director uses 'evidence' from a highly suspect source that contains highly suspect information . . .

If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director uses this non-official intelligence information for this same subject driven investigation . . .

If that same obviously politically biased senior FBI director can write a memo exonerating the subject before the subject is even interviewed . . . .​

This is what I was referring to, not the questions you seem to be ADD focused on.
 
Fair point then. But not to your unanswerable questions.

The miss-handling is clearly present in...the bias against Trump

Do you think that people in the trump campaign could have helped themselves by going directly to the FBI and being honest with them from the outset?
 
Do you think that people in the trump campaign could have helped themselves by going directly to the FBI and being honest with them from the outset?

Do Presidential campaigns meet with foreign dignitaries and other contacts from foreign governments?

Sure they do.

That the meeting turned out to be 'a nothing meeting', didn't deliver what was promised, nor even talk about the topic was promised, apparently, nor tha tthere was a follow up meeting, what would / should have been reported to the FBI anyway?

"Oh My God! There Were Russians!"

Seriously.
Presidential campaigns meet with foreign dignitaries and other contacts from foreign governments all the time, as did the Hillary campaign, as did the Obama campaign, as did the Romney campaign.

Much blunted by the fact that the DNC's and Hillary campaign's desire for oppo research came from the same place, and was paid for by them (through cut outs).

What are you really all bent out of shape about over this anyway?
 
Do Presidential campaigns meet with foreign dignitaries and other contacts from foreign governments?

Sure they do.

That the meeting turned out to be 'a nothing meeting', didn't deliver what was promised, nor even talk about the topic was promised, apparently, nor tha tthere was a follow up meeting, what would / should have been reported to the FBI anyway?

So if the meeting was so legit, why did why did Trump Jr. lie about the content of the meeting and who was present, why did Trump dictate Jr.'s response about that meeting, and why did he lie about dictating that response? And finally, why did it take Trump a full year to come clean and admit that the meeting was about getting dirt on Clinton?

You know, since the meeting was so on-the-level.
 
So if the meeting was so legit, why did why did Trump Jr. lie about the content of the meeting and who was present, why did Trump dictate Jr.'s response about that meeting, and why did he lie about dictating that response? And finally, why did it take Trump a full year to come clean and admit that the meeting was about getting dirt on Clinton?

You know, since the meeting was so on-the-level.

:shrug:

I have no idea. Why don't you go and ask him?

It seems that often people don't do themselves favors.
 
:shrug:

I have no idea. Why don't you go and ask him?

It seems that often people don't do themselves favors.

If you're unable to explain why Trump Jr. lied about the content of the meeting and who was present, why Trump dictated Jr.'s response about that meeting, why he lied about dictating that response, and why it took Trump a full year to come clean and admit that the meeting was about getting dirt on Clinton, don't you think it's a bit premature to claim that the meeting was legitimate?

And finally, if you're unable to explain why nobody on the campaign went to the FBI after being approached by and meeting with Russian agents, don't you think it's premature to claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?
 
If you're unable to explain why Trump Jr. lied about the content of the meeting and who was present, why Trump dictated Jr.'s response about that meeting, why he lied about dictating that response, and why it took Trump a full year to come clean and admit that the meeting was about getting dirt on Clinton, don't you think it's a bit premature to claim that the meeting was legitimate?

And finally, if you're unable to explain why nobody on the campaign went to the FBI after being approached by and meeting with Russian agents, don't you think it's premature to claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?

"premature to claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?"

No, I don't, specifically for the reasons that I've listed, which you appear to be persistent in your ignoring of them.
An investigation built on a flawed foundation, such as I have listed, doesn't get better. The flawed foundation remains.

Essentially the same people, and another list of legitimate concerns, which incorrectly and inappropriately exonerated Hillary from her federal crimes goes to demonstrate the political bias at play with these people. Now why would I trust a single thing they said or actions they've taken?

The DOJ and FBI have discredited themselves for at least a generation, or until the majority of the top 1/2 of their managements are fired and replaced or retired.

So, yes, I'd say that's miss-handling in spades, and I think that's putting it in the kindest of terms.
 
"premature to claim that the FBI mishandled the Trump/Russia investigation?"

No, I don't, specifically for the reasons that I've listed, which you appear to be persistent in your ignoring of them.
An investigation built on a flawed foundation, such as I have listed, doesn't get better. The flawed foundation remains.

Since you ignored the first set of questions, I'll assume you agree that it was premature to claim the meeting was legitimate and normal.

Also, until you're unable to explain why Trump and his campaign steadfastly refused to go to the FBI and subsequently lied about their meetings with Russian agents, your claim that the FBI mishandled their investigation of Trump/Russia is woefully premature. In short, you need to go back think on the Trump campaign's behavior before you can credibly put any onus onto the FBI.
 
Since you ignored the first set of questions, I'll assume you agree that it was premature to claim the meeting was legitimate and normal.

Addressed earlier.

Also, until you're unable to explain why Trump and his campaign steadfastly refused to go to the FBI and subsequently lied about their meetings with Russian agents, your claim that the FBI mishandled their investigation of Trump/Russia is woefully premature. In short, you need to go back think on the Trump campaign's behavior before you can credibly put any onus onto the FBI.

Given the performance of the DOJ and FBI in these two particular and equally high profile cases, responding with being critical of the FBI and DOJ is most certainly not premature. Their performance in these cases is public record.

The Mueller investigation's results are not (other than what they've leaked). It would be premature to peg any sort of result from that, such as what you are doing.
 
Addressed earlier.

Correction: ignored earlier.

Given the performance of the DOJ and FBI in these two particular and equally high profile cases, responding with being critical of the FBI and DOJ is most certainly not premature. Their performance in these cases is public record.

The Mueller investigation's results are not (other than what they've leaked). It would be premature to peg any sort of result from that, such as what you are doing.

Since you find the question of why nobody in the Trump campaign went to the FBI after meeting with Russian agents to be "unanswerable", yes, being critical of the FBI and the DOJ is indeed premature with respect to the Russia/Trump investigation. However, when you find that you're able to address this very basic question, your criticism of the FBI may be able to be discussed.

And no, I will not ask Trump. I'm asking you.
 
OK. One voting system out of a great many that are used across the nation's polling places as the potential to be compromised.
I think it would be time to either upgrade / protect / secure these systems and prove that they have been, or replace them.

What is the percentage of these systems used across all voting systems? I'm pretty sure that it isn't 100%, and would think its as low as single digits.

My concern is that if these flaws were unearthed in 2007, what sort of improvements may crooks have made to insure that potential electronic voter fraud is undetected? I just think more should be done to insure Americans are not being defrauded by crooks with access to voting machines that is relatively undetectable. You ask a good question.

How do we know these vulnerable machines are not being used today? Democrats trying to explain major discrepancies in the Detroit returns in the 2016 election blamed human incompetence but they also blamed "some of the irregularities on aging voting machines." (Detroit News, Detroit reps rip clerk's 'shameful' election oversight, Feb 10, 2017.)
 
OK. One voting system out of a great many that are used across the nation's polling places as the potential to be compromised.
I think it would be time to either upgrade / protect / secure these systems and prove that they have been, or replace them.

What is the percentage of these systems used across all voting systems? I'm pretty sure that it isn't 100%, and would think its as low as single digits.

One type of Sequoia voting machine in use has a button on the back that anyone can push to run the vote tally up. Why would any voting machine have such a button? Voting machine manufacturers could possibly be paid millions by crook for such a button to be included in the design for the purpose of criminally altering the vote totals recorded by such machines.

Ballot stuffing is still possible with electronic machines. For example, a version of the Sequoia touchscreen voting machine has a yellow button on the back side that allows repeated voting. pressing the button triggers two audible beeps to alert elections observers about the illegal votes.
Election Fraud, Ballot stuffing, Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom