Sad Days at The FBI

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Since it doesn’t exist that’s probably a good bet.

As referenced you are likely correct. But, wait for it. Something cometh. 

[homersapien 11,452]

57 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think you are focused on the wrong thing. Should the memo be released, I doubt the "secret society" reference you allude to will receive any play. 

I'm not "focused" on anything.

I'm quoting Gowdy and Ratcliffe.    

[homersapien 11,452]

39 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

As referenced you are likely correct. But, wait for it. Something cometh. 

In black helicopters no doubt.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

47 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

As referenced you are likely correct. But, wait for it. Something cometh. 

But the left will be in a huge denial mode. I bet talking points are ready.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Well the first big thing to come out is the removal today of FBI Deputy Dir. McCabe today. This follwed a rare Sunday afternoon visit to Capitol Hill by Director Wray to review the info.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/29/fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-is-stepping-down-from-bureau-fox-news-has-learned.html

Hopefully in spite of objections of the vast majority of Dems  we cal all see the memo soon. The House Intelligence Committee, voting along party lines, just voted to release it.

 

[Auburn4life 24]

Let us not forget that The Clinton Foundation "dontated" $700,000 for McCabe's wife campaign.  But Russia, But Russia, But Russia

[homersapien 11,452]

3 hours ago, Auburn4life said:

Let us not forget that The Clinton Foundation "dontated" $700,000 for McCabe's wife campaign.  But Russia, But Russia, But Russia

You really shouldn't take anything Trump tweets as true.

In the above tweet, Trump didn't have his facts straight. McCabe's wife, Jill, ran for the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat in 2015 and received $467,500 from the political action committee of the state's then-governor, Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.

Beyond exaggerating the dollar amount (even if you throw in $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, the total still falls short of $700,000) Trump got the timeline wrong. McCabe was not “in charge” of the Clinton email investigation at the time of his wife's campaign. He did not become the FBI's deputy director until 2016 and only then “assumed, for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton's emails,” according to the agency.

The theory that donations to Jill McCabe's campaign were some kind of bribe intended to curry favor with the man in charge of the email investigation just doesn't make sense. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/30/andrew-mccabe-could-be-a-bigger-headache-for-trump-outside-the-fbi-than-he-was-inside/?utm_term=.5edae5e35ecf

[TitanTiger 20,511]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You really shouldn't take anything Trump tweets as true.

In the above tweet, Trump didn't have his facts straight. McCabe's wife, Jill, ran for the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat in 2015 and received $467,500 from the political action committee of the state's then-governor, Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.

Beyond exaggerating the dollar amount (even if you throw in $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, the total still falls short of $700,000) Trump got the timeline wrong. McCabe was not “in charge” of the Clinton email investigation at the time of his wife's campaign. He did not become the FBI's deputy director until 2016 and only then “assumed, for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton's emails,” according to the agency.

The theory that donations to Jill McCabe's campaign were some kind of bribe intended to curry favor with the man in charge of the email investigation just doesn't make sense. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/30/andrew-mccabe-could-be-a-bigger-headache-for-trump-outside-the-fbi-than-he-was-inside/?utm_term=.5edae5e35ecf

Given his history so far, I just assume that whatever Trump tweets about is inaccurate, exaggerated or a deliberate lie on the front end, then adjust my views accordingly if the facts later vindicate him.  He's exhausted all benefit of the doubt.

[homersapien 11,452]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Given his history so far, I just assume that whatever Trump tweets about is inaccurate, exaggerated or a deliberate lie on the front end, then adjust my views accordingly if the facts later vindicate him.  He's exhausted all benefit of the doubt.

Playing the odds is just common sense.   

[WDavE 332]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:16 PM, homersapien said:

In black helicopters no doubt.  

I thought the black helicopters were Russian and in play already?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Interesting development.   Kind of pokes a hole in the prevailing conservative narrative about this agent.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/strzok-fbi-comey-clinton-letter/index.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

55 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Interesting development.   Kind of pokes a hole in the prevailing conservative narrative about this agent.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/strzok-fbi-comey-clinton-letter/index.html

What is the "prevailing conservative narrative" and how does this poke a hole in it?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

47 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

What is the "prevailing conservative narrative" and how does this poke a hole in it?

Prevailing narrative being that this agent has an agenda against Trump due to his texts.  This report shows that he actually worked on the Clinton part that was released by Comey.  Kind of hard to have a bias for one or the other when this is the case.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Prevailing narrative being that this agent has an agenda against Trump due to his texts.  This report shows that he actually worked on the Clinton part that was released by Comey.  Kind of hard to have a bias for one or the other when this is the case.

He torpedoed Clinton and made Trump President. Repugs: Clear bias toward Clinton.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Prevailing narrative being that this agent has an agenda against Trump due to his texts.  This report shows that he actually worked on the Clinton part that was released by Comey.  Kind of hard to have a bias for one or the other when this is the case.

So your contention is his texts were lies and/or he did not believe what his fingers typed?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

So your contention is his texts were lies and/or he did not believe what his fingers typed?

No, my contention is that maybe, just maybe, the guy is pretty even handed with regards to doing his job.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

No, my contention is that maybe, just maybe, the guy is pretty even handed with regards to doing his job.

So his texts meant what exactly?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

So his texts meant what exactly?

Who knows?  I have no idea what his relationship to the receiver of the texts his, how they communicate, etc.  It's dangerous to look only at the literal word in just about any situation.  For instance, one could read my texts with my best friend and think we're raging psychopaths with the kind of dark humor we have. However, in context of our communication style, the conversations are pretty benign.

What I do know is that is has been argued that because of his texts, he can't possibly be fair to Trump.  My counter is simply, the guy worked on the Clinton investigation that changed the entire complexion of the campaign.  That would seem as if he's capable of doing his job regardless of party.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who knows?  I have no idea what his relationship to the receiver of the texts his, how they communicate, etc.  It's dangerous to look only at the literal word in just about any situation.  For instance, one could read my texts with my best friend and think we're raging psychopaths with the kind of dark humor we have. However, in context of our communication style, the conversations are pretty benign.

What I do know is that is has been argued that because of his texts, he can't possibly be fair to Trump.  My counter is simply, the guy worked on the Clinton investigation that changed the entire complexion of the campaign.  That would seem as if he's capable of doing his job regardless of party.

You raise potentially valid points. Let's see where it goes. Thanks for the dialogue.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

So his texts meant what exactly?

Like most Americans, he was unimpressed with both candidates.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Like most Americans, he was unimpressed with both candidates.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Prevailing narrative being that this agent has an agenda against Trump due to his texts.  This report shows that he actually worked on the Clinton part that was released by Comey.  Kind of hard to have a bias for one or the other when this is the case.

He helped write the memo that Comey used to take Hillary off the hook. How can you say he isn't biased. Not to mention his wife gave $600,000 to the Clinton campaign.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

He helped write the memo that Comey used to take Hillary off the hook. How can you say he isn't biased. Not to mention his wife gave $600,000 to the Clinton campaign.

From my post above:

My counter is simply, the guy worked on the Clinton investigation that changed the entire complexion of the campaign.  That would seem as if he's capable of doing his job regardless of party.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

He helped write the memo that Comey used to take Hillary off the hook. How can you say he isn't biased. Not to mention his wife gave $600,000 to the Clinton campaign.

I'd also point out who his wife gave money to is irrelevant.  It's well known that James Carville is married to a Republican.  They disagree on politics vehemently.  Doesn't mean they still can't leave that at the door when they get home.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who knows?  I have no idea what his relationship to the receiver of the texts his, how they communicate, etc.  It's dangerous to look only at the literal word in just about any situation.  For instance, one could read my texts with my best friend and think we're raging psychopaths with the kind of dark humor we have. However, in context of our communication style, the conversations are pretty benign.

What I do know is that is has been argued that because of his texts, he can't possibly be fair to Trump.  My counter is simply, the guy worked on the Clinton investigation that changed the entire complexion of the campaign.  That would seem as if he's capable of doing his job regardless of party.

I think you make a fair point but also keep in mind the lack of transparency by the FBI in not turning over the texts. That should raise some red flags. They claimed their was a glitch with the FBI's devices during that time period, that's a reasonable issue to blame it on. But then after they say the glitch was the reasoning for the missing texts, somehow the inspector general's office was able to recover quite a few of the texts that had been missing.  How amazing is that?  How could the FBI not recover their own texts? They had to have known a process in which to recover the texts but instead it was the inspector general's office which ended up recovering some of the texts.

I know you didn't mention Andrew McCabe so I'm not directing this at you, this is just a general comment about McCabe. His exit from the FBI is strongly suggested to at least partly be because of the upcoming IG(which is non-partisan) report which is likely not going to reflect well on McCabe's role in the 2016 Clinton e-mail investigation. There has been some law enforcement officials who felt McCabe may have been just sitting on Huma Abedin's e-mails and wanted to wait until after the election to take action on the e-mails.