• 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!

The FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law

ThoughtEx. said:
Ok, you shared a document I've read before and then speculated. You'll have to spell it out for me, what portion of what you just pointed is evidence of false narratives.

All I'm seeing is a document and speculation on the document.

Which would've been fine if you hadn't claimed the proof has been plastered all around for months.

And a few thins in the dossier where verified, although I'm not surprised you missed that tidbit.

Steele, Trump-Russia dossier 2 years later: what’s corroborated, unclear - Business Insider

So...

I'm not seeing supporting evidence of your earlier claim.

And I seriously doubt you can produce it at this point, so we are done here.

Next time save us the time and know the difference between evidence and speculation about a document from trump supporters.
Click to expand...

Course, you could read this thread also.

[h=3]Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State [/h]
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The most likely answer is that they were the best people available at the time.

Since Mueller was forbidden from using political affiliation as a criterion, how should Mueller have proceeded when choosing people?

How do you think the FBI should handle the political affiliations of their personnel?


  1. Should the FBI require that personnel selection criteria include political affiliation?
  2. Should the FBI allow that personnel selection criteria include political affiliation?
  3. Or, should the FBI disallow political affiliation to be used as criteria for assignments?
Click to expand...

I would say that if someone being considered for Mueller's team had given the max. donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that might be reason enough to reconsider. As I understand it, and someone will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, 14 out of 17 members of the Mueller team were Democrats while none were Republicans. No, I don't think teams should be assembled based on "diversity," but thinking Mueller couldn't find anybody who wasn't a Democrat beggars belief.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
In essence you are supporting investigating those who investigated Trump, for partisan reasons. IE Mueller hired to many democrats. A few of them sent messages to each other omg.

It's questions meant to normalize a revenge investigation by a President into the people who found evidence on four counts of obstruction.

You are not giving any specific names, or accusing any specific members of Mueller's team with accusations of investigatory impropriety. Merely trying to float the idea that Democratic FBI agents would frame a President on speculation because of some right think piece that's clever about how it frames it's propaganda.

It's dangerous. You know exactly what you're doing. And I'm calling you out on it. Neither one of us believes you care about 35 million dollars being used inappropriately. If you did, you'd be focused entirely elsewhere. Like Trumps 100 million he's spent on his own properties. And you would be mentioning the money the investigation recovered from people like Manafort.

Those questions will kick off a narrative within Trump supporters, who will not care about truth or anything else other than Trump winning. It will fuel their ignorance as they proudly proclaim speculation as fact.

And in the very remote possibility that the democratic members of the Investigation team planted evidence. Alot of the evidence is Trump just running his mouth.

And Mueller can't definitively say when he knew Trump did not collude. Because he doesn't definitively know that. Lot of circumstantial evidence points to yes, and lucky for Trump not enough points to concrete yes. That's not a declaration of innocence.

So far every thing you've stated is just blatantly obvious propaganda. Meant to undermine the Mueller report and let other Trump supporters go I knew it, ****ing libs.
Click to expand...

I think you're projecting here. I can't imagine why you would think that I want all the facts to emerge for partisan reasons. Any reasonable person wants all the facts. :roll:

I'm sorry, but the spending of $35 million isn't propaganda...nor is my expressing the hope that all the facts emerge nor my attitude that then the chips fall where they may. That's projection on your part.

But you tell me why Strzok and Page were removed from Mueller's team. And explain why learning whether the FISA court was misled and, if so, who did the misleading doesn't matter.
 
nota bene said:
I think you're projecting here. I can't imagine why you would think that I want all the facts to emerge for partisan reasons. Any reasonable person wants all the facts. :roll:

I'm sorry, but the spending of $35 million isn't propaganda...nor is my expressing the hope that all the facts emerge nor my attitude that then the chips fall where they may. That's projection on your part.

But you tell me why Strzok and Page were removed from Mueller's team. And explain why learning whether the FISA court was misled and, if so, who did the misleading doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Nota this isn't the first time I've caught you feeding the low watt thinkers simplified propaganda and speculation they'll treat as facts. You and I both know, all the dimwit trump supporters are going to read your questions, assume it's a forgone conclusion and start harping about the facts being clear. Page was a setup.

You know this, I know you know this.

The 35 million is Propaganda, considering Starr spent 12 million a year for 6 years investigating a lie about a blow job.
And considering Mueller's investigation led to millions in fines against top Trump Campaign officials. That offset that cost.

So framing it differently is textbook propaganda.

You definitely want it for partisan reasons, the investigation was into whether Russia interfered. Trump wasn't the focus, but because it pretty much confirms what Trump supporters have been denying and distracting from, Trump is going to launch investigations of his own.

You need to normalize that. You need to call the findings into question.

Otherwise you will have to face the fact everyone who's been telling you for the last two years that Trump is a criminal piece of **** was right, and you have contributed to damaging the country greatly.
 
nota bene said:
I would say that if someone being considered for Mueller's team had given the max. donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that might be reason enough to reconsider. As I understand it, and someone will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, 14 out of 17 members of the Mueller team were Democrats while none were Republicans. No, I don't think teams should be assembled based on "diversity," but thinking Mueller couldn't find anybody who wasn't a Democrat beggars belief.
Click to expand...

LOL! So you mean you didn't know that Mueller himself is a lifelong conservative republicans?

Too good.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
In essence you are supporting investigating those who investigated Trump, for partisan reasons. IE Mueller hired to many democrats. A few of them sent messages to each other omg.

It's questions meant to normalize a revenge investigation by a President into the people who found evidence on four counts of obstruction.

You are not giving any specific names, or accusing any specific members of Mueller's team with accusations of investigatory impropriety. Merely trying to float the idea that Democratic FBI agents would frame a President on speculation because of some right think piece that's clever about how it frames it's propaganda.

It's dangerous. You know exactly what you're doing. And I'm calling you out on it. Neither one of us believes you care about 35 million dollars being used inappropriately. If you did, you'd be focused entirely elsewhere. Like Trumps 100 million he's spent on his own properties. And you would be mentioning the money the investigation recovered from people like Manafort.

Those questions will kick off a narrative within Trump supporters, who will not care about truth or anything else other than Trump winning. It will fuel their ignorance as they proudly proclaim speculation as fact.

And in the very remote possibility that the democratic members of the Investigation team planted evidence. Alot of the evidence is Trump just running his mouth.

And Mueller can't definitively say when he knew Trump did not collude. Because he doesn't definitively know that. Lot of circumstantial evidence points to yes, and lucky for Trump not enough points to concrete yes. That's not a declaration of innocence.

So far every thing you've stated is just blatantly obvious propaganda. Meant to undermine the Mueller report and let other Trump supporters go I knew it, ****ing libs.
Click to expand...

This.

And another thread on Soros working to bring people into this country illegally.

It is dangerous and reckless, but they don't care. They will do anything to get and keep power.

Even if it leads to synagogues being shot up.

This is how democracy dies.
 
nota bene said:
I would say that if someone being considered for Mueller's team had given the max. donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that might be reason enough to reconsider. As I understand it, and someone will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, 14 out of 17 members of the Mueller team were Democrats while none were Republicans. No, I don't think teams should be assembled based on "diversity," but thinking Mueller couldn't find anybody who wasn't a Democrat beggars belief.
Click to expand...
Again, and still, FBI policy prevents the use of agents political stances when making personnel decisions.
To look at that information while making personnel assignment decisions would have been a violation of policiy.

Are you advocating that Mueller should've violated FBI policy?

Or do you disagree with FBI policy?

If you disagree with FBI policy that political persuasion of agents shouldn't be considered when making personnel decisions, what do you think FBI policy on assigning personnel should be?

Should the FBI be allowed to make staffing decisions based on the political persuasion of FBI agents?
-OR-
Should the FBI be required to make staffing decisions based on the political persuasion of FBI agents?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Again, and still, FBI policy prevents the use of agents political stances when making personnel decisions.
To look at that information while making personnel assignment decisions would have been a violation of policiy.

Are you advocating that Mueller should've violated FBI policy?

Or do you disagree with FBI policy?

If you disagree with FBI policy that political persuasion of agents shouldn't be considered when making personnel decisions, what do you think FBI policy on assigning personnel should be?

Should the FBI be allowed to make staffing decisions based on the political persuasion of FBI agents?
-OR-
Should the FBI be required to make staffing decisions based on the political persuasion of FBI agents?
Click to expand...

Mueller worked for DOJ, not the FBI, so why would their policy impact him? Did he get to select his investigators or were they chosen for him?
 
Moon said:
Mueller worked for DOJ, not the FBI, so why would their policy impact him?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I have mis-remembered or misinterpreted.
A couple of time I almost wrote DoJ.
Moon said:
Did he get to select his investigators or were they chosen for him?
Click to expand...
Idk.
Would you check on that?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Nota this isn't the first time I've caught you feeding the low watt thinkers simplified propaganda and speculation they'll treat as facts. You and I both know, all the dimwit trump supporters are going to read your questions, assume it's a forgone conclusion and start harping about the facts being clear. Page was a setup.

You know this, I know you know this.
Click to expand...

You've "caught" me "feeding low-watt thinkers"? This is as insulting as it is preposterous.

ThoughtEx. said:
The 35 million is Propaganda, considering Starr spent 12 million a year for 6 years investigating a lie about a blow job.
And considering Mueller's investigation led to millions in fines against top Trump Campaign officials. That offset that cost.

So framing it differently is textbook propaganda.
Click to expand...

Calling the expenditure of $35 million of taxpayers' money is not "propaganda." This is ludicrous. But I'm glad that you're pleased by fines offsetting the cost. :roll:

ThoughtEx. said:
You definitely want it for partisan reasons, the investigation was into whether Russia interfered. Trump wasn't the focus, but because it pretty much confirms what Trump supporters have been denying and distracting from, Trump is going to launch investigations of his own.

You need to normalize that. You need to call the findings into question.

Otherwise you will have to face the fact everyone who's been telling you for the last two years that Trump is a criminal piece of **** was right, and you have contributed to damaging the country greatly.
Click to expand...

You really do have a lot of nerve telling me that my hoping that all the facts emerge is "partisan." You don't know my heart or mind, but let me assure you that just because you're immersed in partisanship doesn't mean that others are. And how presumptuous of you to indict me for contributing greatly to damaging my country. What crap.
 
nota bene said:
You've "caught" me "feeding low-watt thinkers"? This is as insulting as it is preposterous.



Calling the expenditure of $35 million of taxpayers' money is not "propaganda." This is ludicrous. But I'm glad that you're pleased by fines offsetting the cost. :roll:



You really do have a lot of nerve telling me that my hoping that all the facts emerge is "partisan." You don't know my heart or mind, but let me assure you that just because you're immersed in partisanship doesn't mean that others are. And how presumptuous of you to indict me for contributing greatly to damaging my country. What crap.
Click to expand...

Nota, you've defended Trump separating families to me, you are completely partisan. You heart and mind voted for and defends a monster who commits crimes against not only our country but humanity. And now, you're throwing out speculation for the dimwits to stupid to form an original thought to take up as facts.


Here's an example of what you are doing.



Spoiler, she was forced to step down, threw a press conference insisting her health is fine and this was all a big mistake.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Nota, you've defended Trump separating families to me, you are completely partisan. You heart and mind voted for and defends a monster who commits crimes against not only our country but humanity. And now, you're throwing out speculation for the dimwits to stupid to form an original thought to take up as facts.


Here's an example of what you are doing.



Spoiler, she was forced to step down, threw a press conference insisting her health is fine and this was all a big mistake.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to watch your vid clip, and I'm not going to let you brand me either. You don't know me, you don't know the way I think, and you certainly don't know my heart.

But go ahead and keep making crap up like your knowing how I voted. You have no idea because I have never said. And by the way, I'm not exactly a Trump fan. I just don't like the Office of the Presidency being disrespected--I never used insulting terms to refer to former President Obama and I never will to refer to the next President either--and I also think that the attacks on this President have been unceasing and unfair. I like fair. Instead of personally attacking someone else and pretending that you know what's in another's heart or mind, you ought to try practicing a little fairness yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom