Justice IG sends criminal referral of Andrew McCabe to US attorney

[Tanngrisnir]

You did not make a single point, I posted an exhaustive list that you ignored (as usual) I get more of your usual passive aggressive and ignorant drivel. I knew there was a reason I have been ignoring you.

You are not interested in debate, just whatever it is you call whatever you do, is.

But, of course, I actually idd. You posted bull**** that you desperately need to pretend proves some kind of point, and you're yet again forced to turn tail and run. You never once, to my experience, backed up what you've said.

Here, let me remind you, since you ran in fear from it;

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...rew-mccabe-us-attorney-18.html#post1068425523

I hate cowardice. You, apparently, live it.

 

[danarhea]

Uh huh, that's nice. If you feel that Obama ordered the IRS to go after his political enemies you're perfectly free to quote and link to that order here.



McCabe could be guiltier than Charles Manson, but Trump tainted the process so the outcome can't be trusted.



Prove that Trump's involvement in the process didn't pollute it.

Look, I'm about as anti-Trump as they come, but in debate, it is not up to him to prove a negative. It's up to you to prove a positive. Show that Trump's involvement DID pollute it. If you find credible links, then it will be up to him to disprove them, but you made the case that Trump's involvement polluted it, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

But, of course, I actually idd. You posted bull**** that you desperately need to pretend proves some kind of point, and you're yet again forced to turn tail and run. You never once, to my experience, backed up what you've said.

Here, let me remind you, since you ran in fear from it;

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...rew-mccabe-us-attorney-18.html#post1068425523

I hate cowardice. You, apparently, live it.

Here I am, tough guy with the scary avatar *shaking in my little booties*

Asides from your usual litany of insults, have you disproven any of it?

I think I shall go back to ignoring your irellevant drivel and BS.

 

[JasperL]

How about we not ignore the fact that the FBI knowingly relied on Democrat funded unsusbtantiated oppo- research to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trumps campaign, and Comey's own admission to spur a Special Council investigation via leaks

Yes, I've heard that. I won't bother trying to have a serious discussion with you about the 'dossier.'

Also, Comey's announcement to reopen the Email investigation was followed by another announcement that the FBI had found no criminal wrongdoing in the new emails

Sure, a couple weeks later. In the meantime, that's all anyone talked about was the EMAILS!!!

The reality is McCabe and Comey both thought Clinton had it in the bag, and days before the election so did every media outlet

No one prior to the election thought the emails or the leaks from McCabe were going to have any effect on Clinton chances, so spare us the hysterics.

McCabe lied under oath and will be held accountable, and he's just the beginning

What everyone thought is irrelevant. Comey, McCabe and probably people in the NY FBI office all released information in the closing weeks that damaged Hillary. You right wing Trump cultists ought to be thanking McCabe. He did Trump a solid favor! Same thing with Comey and whoever leaked the information to the NYT!

 

[Cardinal]

Look, I'm about as anti-Trump as they come, but in debate, it is not up to him to prove a negative. It's up to you to prove a positive. Show that Trump's involvement DID pollute it. If you find credible links, then it will be up to him to disprove them, but you made the case that Trump's involvement polluted it, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

Thank you, Danarhea, but I've been around long enough to know the traditional rule against asking others to prove a negative, so if I appear to be breaking that rule now, it's to make a highly specific point.

 

[JasperL]

The Comey announcement to reopen the investigation was followed by a another announcement that no criminal wrong doing was found in the Emails

Oh and 538 had Clinton winning in a landslide

That's false.

 

[trouble13]

Whatever his motivation was it definitely didn't help Clinton's campaign. And he definitely didn't intend it to. That's just too bizarre to be believed.
Imagine someone thinking that?

I heard an interesting theory about why comey did what he did. The person I spoke to thinks comey knew he was going to have to investigate clinton at some point because of the private server. It was just a matter of when. He took a calculated risk to do it before the election, thinking she was so far ahead in the polls that she would still win the election. Once clinton was potus, he would be able to say that the crime was already investigated before she was elected, so there would be no point in investigating further now that she is our potus.

I am conflicted on the issue of investigating someone during an election. People have a right to know if they are about to elect a crook into office but it is also ripe for abuse by turning these investigations as political tools designed go cast doubt on candidates.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[NonoBadDog]

OK, but I think you misread the comment actually. At least I didn't read it that way - rather as two claims, 1) IG report concludes the action was criminal, and 2) the action was against Hillary.

I read this as it was written:
"The IG report is saying that the way that FBI officials acted **against** Hillary was potentially criminal."
The IG report didn't say that anyone worked "against" Hillary. The report didn't state any such conclusion.

 

[apdst]

But your 'what-if' isn't relevant. For whatever reason, he did reopen the investigation and announced this to Congress, which he knew would leak immediately and it did. What course of action could he have taken that you'd have approved of in that situation?

It isn't a "what if". It's what he said his motivations were.

 

[apdst]

Can you post a link to Comey saying he re-opened the case to "help Clinton". I didn't hear him say those words.

I didn't quote him as saying that, so don't start lying right off the bat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

 

[tres borrachos]

I didn't quote him as saying that, so don't start lying right off the bat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

You're lying.

Absolutely! Comey even admitted he re-opened the Clinton email case for political reasons, to help Clinton.

There have been 5 members from the upper echelon of the FBI who were in cahoots to undermine President Trump--Candidate Trump before he won the election. They efforts went so far as to use false evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump Campaign. I have a problem with that. Any American should have a problem with that.

And in that link you posted, you did nothing to cover up your lie. He never said what you claimed he "admitted".

Here is what he said in that link:

“Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the justice department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?”

What he admits in there is that he assumed she would win (as did most people) and that it would not reflect well on the FBI and the DOJ and even her own Presidency if it came out after the fact that thes FBI knew about these emails that had just surfaced and he didn't disclose it.

He never at any time said he did this to help Clinton. And what he did in no way helped Clinton. It hurt her to some degree.

 

[Acadia]

I heard an interesting theory about why comey did what he did. The person I spoke to thinks comey knew he was going to have to investigate clinton at some point because of the private server. It was just a matter of when. He took a calculated risk to do it before the election, thinking she was so far ahead in the polls that she would still win the election. Once clinton was potus, he would be able to say that the crime was already investigated before she was elected, so there would be no point in investigating further now that she is our potus.

I am conflicted on the issue of investigating someone during an election. People have a right to know if they are about to elect a crook into office but it is also ripe for abuse by turning these investigations as political tools designed go cast doubt on candidates.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

I also believe that it's highly possible Comey decided he would have to come clean about re-opening the Hillary email investigation at some point. When her emails were found on someone's laptop, and not just any someone, the husband of Huma Abedin and a convicted felon, it was bad.
Comey'd hedged his bets after analyzing the polls for about a month and seeing that Hillary was well ahead of Trump and the general consensus that she was going to win the election with the Electoral College "path to victory" assured.
So, Comey made his bid to be transparent before the election, so that after Hillary won, no one could say the she was elected falsely, or illegitimately, because the voting public was kept in the dark about further findings related to the email scandal.
Of course, that continues to backfire on Comey big time and really, it's just been a lose/lose proposition from the get go. I'll give Comey that.
However, otoh, we have Trump continually cast in a negative light with aspersions cast upon his legitimacy since the moment he won. Comey has played fast and loose with Trump and the public with the unverified findings in the dossier, with his coy, clever prevarications.

 

[tres borrachos]

If there were other women involved in accusations of sexual discrimination it would only be known if the women came forward publicly.

No you are the one that is dishonest. YOu wanted a link, I provided one. A link that predicted McCabe would be referred for prosecution days before today's news. It told the whole story about Gritz and more. McCabe is a vindictive creep. And now that he is facing possible prosecution for the same things he has accused others and more like the article said, losing his pension is going to be equivalent to a paper cut. Anyone not filled with TDS can read that article and see how deep the **** is and why McCabe, and others are in trouble. More shoes to drop soon.

I wanted a link to prove she filed sexual discrimination charges against Andrew McCabe, which you said she did. What you gave me was a link to a hit piece from The American Spectator which one, didn't back up your claim, and two, is about as unbiased as a link to The Daily Kos or Infowars or Media Matters.

The only people who have TDS are the ones that use hit pieces from Trump-supporting opinion writers as proof of something.

You draw your opinions about McCabe based on what Trump tells you to think. That right there is TDS.

 

[Fenton]

That's false.

No, its not. Every major media outlet had Clinton winning by a landslide. No one, including professional polsters care about Comey's announcement

Whining about it after the fact is just sour grapes.

As for McCabe, if they're going after McCabe for lying under oath, imagine whats in store for people like John Brennan

Brennan''s neck deep in the dossier / FISA abuse scandal

Brennan initiated the multi-agency investigation into Trump / Russia collusion when he briefed Harry Ried on the contents of the dossisier.

Harry Reid then asked Comey to open a investigation into Trump and his campaigns contacts with Russia. Brennan also briefed Congress on the contents of the dossier

What evidence did Brennan have ?

He had the dossier

When asked by Trey Gowdy if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was coluding with the Kremlin, Brennan replied that he had none

A unsubstantiated Hillary funded oppo-research hit piece was enough according to Brennan, James Comey, McCabe, Yates, Rosenstein to justify a massive multi-agency investigation that led to the surveillance and unmasking of a opposition candidate and his staff during a election year

Unreal !

He also lied under oath in front of Congress when he was asked if he was aware who commisioned the dossier and lied when he testifird the dossier had no influence on the ICs initial assertion of Russian collusion

When it comes to undermining American democracy and attempting to interfere with a Presidential election, Putins got nothing on John Brennan

Brennans been a little nutty on Twitter lately. His attacks against Trump are get more maniacal
I thinks he's fully aware that the jig is up, that he and his fellow Obama appointee cronies have been exposed.

 

[apdst]

You're lying.



And in that link you posted, you did nothing to cover up your lie. He never said what you claimed he "admitted".

Here is what he said in that link:

“Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the justice department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?”

What he admits in there is that he assumed she would win (as did most people) and that it would not reflect well on the FBI and the DOJ and even her own Presidency if it came out after the fact that thes FBI knew about these emails that had just surfaced and he didn't disclose it.

He never at any time said he did this to help Clinton. And what he did in no way helped Clinton. It hurt her to some degree.

Right and I didnxt quote him. Is this the hill you want to take a stand on? Really?

 

[vesper]

I wanted a link to prove she filed sexual discrimination charges against Andrew McCabe, which you said she did. What you gave me was a link to a hit piece from The American Spectator which one, didn't back up your claim, and two, is about as unbiased as a link to The Daily Kos or Infowars or Media Matters.

The only people who have TDS are the ones that use hit pieces from Trump-supporting opinion writers as proof of something.

You draw your opinions about McCabe based on what Trump tells you to think. That right there is TDS.

From the link I posted

"In 2013, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against her FBI supervisors alleging sexual discrimination and hostile work environment. In 2014, she amended her complaint by averring that she suffered “a hostile [work] environment, defamation of character through continued targeting by Andrew McCabe.”

Here's an interview Robyn Gritz gave in her own words describing what happened. Early on in the interview she stated that she wasn't the only one targeted in the department she was working at the FBI. A black agent was harassed as well. She also mentions other cases where people were forced out just as she was later on in the interview.






No I don't draw my opinions, conclusions on McCabe from Trump. I went to the one who made the accusations.

 

[JasperL]

It isn't a "what if". It's what he said his motivations were.

"What course of action could he have taken that you'd have approved of in that situation?"

 

[JasperL]

No, its not. Every major media outlet had Clinton winning by a landslide.

538 gave Trump a 29% chance of winning the election, roughly 1 in 3.

I deleted the rest because you're not bothering to address anyone else's arguments, and there is no point engaging if you're just going to cut and paste the same points without debating.

 

[tres borrachos]

From the link I posted

"In 2013, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against her FBI supervisors alleging sexual discrimination and hostile work environment. In 2014, she amended her complaint by averring that she suffered “a hostile [work] environment, defamation of character through continued targeting by Andrew McCabe.”

Here's an interview Robyn Gritz gave in her own words describing what happened. Early on in the interview she stated that she wasn't the only one targeted in the department she was working at the FBI. A black agent was harassed as well. She also mentions other cases where people were forced out just as she was later on in the interview.






No I don't draw my opinions, conclusions on McCabe from Trump. I went to the one who made the accusations.

The link you posted was to a hit piece. That's the only reference on the internet to that. She herself never even said she filed charges against McCabe - she said her direct supervisor.

And still no other charges by any other woman who ever worked for the FBI while McCabe was there. So we're to assume she was the only person ever in his history who he "sexually discriminated against"? No. I assume it's sour grapes from one person. Most others do as well - except those who hate McCabe because Trump does.

 

[tres borrachos]

Right and I didnxt quote him. Is this the hill you want to take a stand on? Really?

You lied. You made a claim about an "admission" he never made. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading your posts knows it.

 

[apdst]

You lied. You made a claim about an "admission" he never made. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading your posts knows it.

He admitted he decided to open the case was because he thought Clinton was going to win and he wanted to make sure her legitimacy wasn't damaged.

Comey has said that he made the public announcement in part because he was concerned concealing the FBI's investigation would imply bias. However, in the book Comey acknowledges that he assumed at the time that Clinton would win the election.

"Certainly not consciously, but I would be a fool to say it couldn't have had an impact on me," he wrote of the assumption, according to ABC News. "It is entirely possible my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don't know."

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-better-explain-decision-on-clinton-probe?amp

 

[tres borrachos]

He admitted he decided to open the case was because he thought Clinton was going to win and he wanted to make sure her legitimacy wasn't damaged.

Your claim, again.

Absolutely! Comey even admitted he re-opened the Clinton email case for political reasons, to help Clinton.

There have been 5 members from the upper echelon of the FBI who were in cahoots to undermine President Trump--Candidate Trump before he won the election. They efforts went so far as to use false evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump Campaign. I have a problem with that. Any American should have a problem with that.

Stop lying.

 

[apdst]

Your claim, again.



Stop lying.

Ok, so much for an adult conversation. :lamo

 

[vesper]

The link you posted was to a hit piece. That's the only reference on the internet to that. She herself never even said she filed charges against McCabe - she said her direct supervisor.

And still no other charges by any other woman who ever worked for the FBI while McCabe was there. So we're to assume she was the only person ever in his history who he "sexually discriminated against"? No. I assume it's sour grapes from one person. Most others do as well - except those who hate McCabe because Trump does.

And still no other charges by any other woman who ever worked for the FBI while McCabe was there. So we're to assume she was the only person ever in his history who he "sexually discriminated against"? No. I assume it's sour grapes from one person. Most others do as well - except those who hate McCabe because Trump does.[/QUOTE]

Nope her filing says differently. Her interview reveals how the same tactics McCabe and his cronies used to force her out she names others which include women that went through the same thing. She exposes McCabe's good ole boys club. She pointed out that while McCabe was acting director he appointed his buddies to several key positions within the FBI. You don't want to believe her that's your prerogative.

McCabe is in a lot of hot water at the moment possibly facing criminal charges. You have Comey out there basically calling McCabe a liar and McCabe's atty's calling Comey a liar. The two top cops that once headed up Obama's FBI out there publically pointing their finger at each other. Comey even went on to say he was the one the called for the investigation of McCabe and may very well be called as a witness for the prosecution if McCabe is charged. But Comey has his own problems with credibility so we shall see.

It's the general consensus that the IG will be referring more people from his investigation for prosecution. Several have stated McCabe was just the tip of the iceberg. I look forward to the final release of the IG's report.

Equal justice under the law.

 

[tres borrachos]

Ok, so much for an adult conversation. :lamo

Your childish laughing emoticon isn't going to help you. You lied. That's a fact. And as usually happens when you lie, you were outed.