• 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 Under Scrutiny

LosAngelesAngel

LosAngelesAngel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
415
Location
California
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
~ It is quite obvious certain people in the past administration are concerned about
inspections of their past conduct. Recently James Comey tossed a few of his own under the bus after previously praising them. Full of contradictions and flip-flops. The most recent one to become nervous is former FBI legal counsel Mr. Baker ...
Nice to know that the FBI is "on the job" 😕

- Baker said he is "always nervous about the IG," adding that they are "coming in after the fact to look at what we did." At the time, he said, the FBI was
trying to do it in real time and having the pressure to deal with these threats as they were coming."
Baker contended that he was confident in the judgments that I made at the time based on the information that I had available to me." But he left open the possibility that others may have engaged in wrongdoing, saying, "I'm sure they will find things that I didn't know at the time and maybe that others didn't know at the time."

 
the noose tightens


:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::2wave:
 
Being the target of a corrupt administration bent on partisan revenge is only "under scrutiny" in the most technical of senses.

Consider: if the target is on the right, they say "innocent until proven guilty" even if the context is not a criminal trial. If they have decided to treat the target as if it's on the left, the fact of their own targeting is treated as evidence of guilt and nefarious plots.
 
Mr Person said:
Being the target of a corrupt administration bent on partisan revenge is only "under scrutiny" in the most technical of senses.

Consider: if the target is on the right, they say "innocent until proven guilty" even if the context is not a criminal trial. If they have decided to treat the target as if it's on the left, the fact of their own targeting is treated as evidence of guilt and nefarious plots.
Click to expand...

And how is this any different that being the target of Obama's corrupt deep state bent on partisan revenge? You know, the one who had an insurance policy in case Trump actually won?
 
Moderate Right said:
And how is this any different that being the target of Obama's corrupt deep state bent on partisan revenge? You know, the one who had an insurance policy in case Trump actually won?
Click to expand...

And what was that insurance policy and when did they use it?

If the investigation was all made up to get Trump, why didn’t they make up enough evidence to implicate Trump? Why would, or how could, Mueller say there was not enough evidence for collusion if all the evidence was a lie?

And I do admire the prescience of the FBI to start surveillance on Carter Page and Paul Manafort in 2014. How did they know?
 
pinqy said:
And what was that insurance policy and when did they use it?

If the investigation was all made up to get Trump, why didn’t they make up enough evidence to implicate Trump? Why would, or how could, Mueller say there was not enough evidence for collusion if all the evidence was a lie?

And I do admire the prescience of the FBI to start surveillance on Carter Page and Paul Manafort in 2014. How did they know?
Click to expand...

Fake evidence to get warrants is a piece of cake - and what they did was successful - not as much as they wanted but absolutely so. How? In addition to succeeding in their goal of trashing the reputation of the USA on behalf of Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran, trashing Trump's reputation, they correctly relied that millions of extremely stupid or gullible people would believe it - and once committed to that belief would continue to believe it even if proven 100% false by DEMOCRAT investigators - as it was. Basically, that is the majority of Democrats. They will believe ANY lie told by their partisan masters - no exceptions - like Jim Jone;s Kool Aid drinkers.
 
Mr Person said:
Being the target of a corrupt administration bent on partisan revenge is only "under scrutiny" in the most technical of senses.

Consider: if the target is on the right, they say "innocent until proven guilty" even if the context is not a criminal trial. If they have decided to treat the target as if it's on the left, the fact of their own targeting is treated as evidence of guilt and nefarious plots.
Click to expand...

Trump was accused. Comey managed to initiate a two-year multimillion dollar investigation of Trump before the investigation found Trump innocent. Now Comey has been accused. Let's see what the investigators find in this case.
 
Mr Person said:
Being the target of a corrupt administration bent on partisan revenge is only "under scrutiny" in the most technical of senses.

Consider: if the target is on the right, they say "innocent until proven guilty" even if the context is not a criminal trial. If they have decided to treat the target as if it's on the left, the fact of their own targeting is treated as evidence of guilt and nefarious plots.
Click to expand...
LOL, the allegedly "corrupt administration" has been the target of the most vicious partisan attack for over two years. Since there are strong indications that the Dem party violated laws, there is no "revenge" just executing the law.
 
marke said:
Trump was accused. Comey managed to initiate a two-year multimillion dollar investigation of Trump before the investigation found Trump innocent. Now Comey has been accused. Let's see what the investigators find in this case.
Click to expand...
The investigation did not find Trump innocent. Mueller specifically pointed that ou as far as obstruction.
 
joko104 said:
Fake evidence to get warrants is a piece of cake ...
Click to expand...
This post above all just demonstrates the ignorance that is rampant in the conservative movement.

If you think a judge in a FISA court would just allow the FBI to surveil someone, simply on the word of the FBI and Steele's report, you really need to go back to school. That can not happen - and would not happen - in even the most extreme case of legal malpractice.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Okay, so which of the many deep state conspiracies is Barr going to uncover? Who will go to jail with Obama and Hillary??? How many years does Hillary get?

Personally, I'd give Hillary 10 years for demanding to be the nominee and allowing the Orange Buffoon to trash what was left of our democratic norms. lol...
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with "deep state"...but everything to do with a corrupt Obama administration. But don't worry...neither Obama nor Hillary will go to jail.

Can't say the same for other corrupt Obama administration pukes, though.
 
Mycroft said:
This has nothing to do with "deep state"...but everything to do with a corrupt Obama administration. But don't worry...neither Obama nor Hillary will go to jail.

Can't say the same for other corrupt Obama administration pukes, though.
Click to expand...

Dem versions of Manafort and Trump's coffee boy? That's pretty weak. I demand Obama's head on a pike! He said something about fundamentally changing the country, or at least Rush said he said that.

You do have a point buried in there - actual white collar crime does pay. Mitch McConnell only pays when he looks in the mirror, but we should praise god for that, lolz...
 
Let me begin with some facts about Trump's administration. Many of his own political appointees have either resigned or been fired. Several Trump appointees, including Michael Flynn, Reince Priebus, Anthony Scaramucci and Tom Price have the shortest-service tenures in the history of their respective offices.

Many of them like John Kelly, Kristjen Nielson, Steve Bannon, H.R. McMaster, Jim Mattis and Bill Schine, just to name a few, have resigned simply because they could no longer carry out Trump's orders. That's the short of it. They either resigned in order to preserve their integrity or they were forced out because they disagreed with Trump's policies.

This is how Trump operates. He'll put someone in a position within his administration that he's confident will be loyal. Being loyal to him mean one thing and one thing only. They cease using their experience and expertise in exchange for pandering to the whims and wants of Trump. Some couldn't do it and refused and Trump quickly got rid of them or they resigned on their own.

Trump has one mode, that's to do as he bids or get out. There's no two ways about it, he gets what he wants out of people or he discards them for someone that will. The same with his FBI. He nominated Christopher Wray ("a man of impeccable credentials"), he nominated Jeff Sessions, he nominated Rod Rosenstein, and of course he nominated William Barr.

When Sessions recused himself from the investigation as he had to, he became the enemy of Trump and was relentlessly harassed by Trump until he was eventually fired. Sessions did Trump's bidding before he was pushed out by firing Andrew McCabe just one day before his pension would be valid. He's doing the same with Christopher Wray, demonizing him now that he wants him gone. He almost fired Rod Rosenstein for talking about impeaching Trump on grounds of the 25th Amendment as suggested he might wear a 'wire'. But Rod Rosenstein was called to meet Trump privately, and lo and behold, nothing every happened to him, he wasn't fired. Rod Rosenstein must have taken the loyalty pledge in blood to get off scot-free from that one.

Trump creates a deep state conspiracy theory every time someone in the FBI doesn't march to his drums and doesn't please him like a good soldier. Trump doesn't understand, and never will, that these people are working for us, the people of the United States. They are sworn to serve this country and uphold the laws of the Constitution, not a dictator president. That's how Trump has lived his gangster life. Do it my way - or there's the highway.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not 'the enemy'. There's 33,852 men and women that work in the FBI. Of course there's both democrats and republicans. They are working for this country and serving the president at the same time. They are not the 'deep state' as Trump wants his base to believe. If we lose our faith and trust in our most valued government agencies, we may as well hang it all up and open the doors wide so our enemies like China and Russia can just march right in and take this country over.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Dem versions of Manafort and Trump's coffee boy? That's pretty weak. I demand Obama's head on a pike! He said something about fundamentally changing the country, or at least Rush said he said that.

You do have a point buried in there - actual white collar crime does pay. Mitch McConnell only pays when he looks in the mirror, but we should praise god for that, lolz...
Click to expand...

???

What the **** are you talking about?
 
The worst partisan level thinkers on DP, have one of their own in the White House.

This is the result.

Give crazy people the keys to the car and they will crash it.
 
MovingPictures said:
This post above all just demonstrates the ignorance that is rampant in the conservative movement.

If you think a judge in a FISA court would just allow the FBI to surveil someone, simply on the word of the FBI and Steele's report, you really need to go back to school. That can not happen - and would not happen - in even the most extreme case of legal malpractice.
Click to expand...

Except that it already did happen.
 
MovingPictures said:
This post above all just demonstrates the ignorance that is rampant in the conservative movement.

If you think a judge in a FISA court would just allow the FBI to surveil someone, simply on the word of the FBI and Steele's report, you really need to go back to school. That can not happen - and would not happen - in even the most extreme case of legal malpractice.
Click to expand...

All available evidence suggests that’s exactly what happened. Hence the investigation into the whole thing.
 
MovingPictures said:
This post above all just demonstrates the ignorance that is rampant in the conservative movement.

If you think a judge in a FISA court would just allow the FBI to surveil someone, simply on the word of the FBI and Steele's report, you really need to go back to school. That can not happen - and would not happen - in even the most extreme case of legal malpractice.
Click to expand...

~It is very possible that there will be some very pissed off FISA judges if they were given misleading information. Could be fireworks ahead ! 💥
 
pinqy said:
The investigation did not find Trump innocent. Mueller specifically pointed that ou as far as obstruction.
Click to expand...

The hate-Trump attack investigators on Mueller's team failed to find anything to charge Trump with in spite of wasting years of time and tens of millions of dollars in the witch hunt. No, they did not find an innocent man innocent in spite of their efforts to find him guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom