Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last night Laura Ingraham was quoting important information and citing the page number. Is MSM doing that?
The Executive Summary seems to be tailored for the media to focus on what's not in it, ignoring important points hidden within the report, making it look like nothing. It's semantics by saying there is no 'documented' evidence people were politically biased but in the report there is plenty of illustrated evidence.
If Wray has to conduct seminars with employees to tell them how to be objective, it means there is bias!
The FBI and DoJ couldn't indict Hillary because it would be revealed that Obama had lied when he said he didn't know she had an unsecured email server and was using public email to transmit classified information to the President while she was traveling to countries known to monitor American communication. We had a president transmitting classified information with no protection!
Yet the Loonies call Trump stupid? He is smart enough not to use any email because he knows he's being spied on by foreign and domestic enemies. He uses the more secure, old fashioned way of sending information, -- by courier.
There may not be documented evidence showing bias, i.e. "We hate Republicans, we hate Trump" but there is a volume of circumstantial evidence which says essentially the same. People have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence, right?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress
There may not be documented evidence showing bias, i.e. "We hate Republicans, we hate Trump" but there is a volume of circumstantial evidence which says essentially the same. People have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence, right?
There isnt circumstantial evidence. you are misusing that word.
There may not be documented evidence showing bias, i.e. "We hate Republicans, we hate Trump" but there is a volume of circumstantial evidence which says essentially the same. People have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence, right?
If circumstantial evidence will land folks in jail, your boy Donny is as good as effed.
There may not be documented evidence showing bias, i.e. "We hate Republicans, we hate Trump" but there is a volume of circumstantial evidence which says essentially the same. People have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence, right?
You would have to show some sort of quid pro quo. Very unlikely. Should be an administrative thing. Not a criminal matter.
I would also note that under some circumstances leaking might be highly patriotic.
Oh please, we're talking about gifts from members of the media to FBI personnel. I don't think it would be hard to determine who offered "the gift," who accepted it and how much it was worth. Everyone who works for the federal government (not just the FBI) knows you can't accept gifts over a certain dollar amount. I think it used to be $10 (it's probably more now) so, for example, you could accept a cheap company trinket like a plastic pen with the company logo but certainly not anything like dinner or a golf trip.
By the way, they are going to do more on that. My point is just that the people who work below the 7th floor aren't all angels. Because "gifts" were involved it is highly unlikely that it had anything to do with whistleblowing where the informant volunteers the info.
Comey made some mistakes but in order to fire an FBI director you should have very credible specific reasons. You loved Comey when he took over for Lynch, Mueller had bipartisan support as did Rosenstein and Wray. But when people didn’t get the outcome they wanted they all needed to be removed. People even want Sessions removed as if his replacement would fire Mueller.
They didn't take it upon themselves to do this.
A much higher power wanted to be kept informed(Page Strock e-mails)
They pointed to Obama.
And the Rosenstein letter does not recommend firing Comey although he hints at it. Regardless it had nothing to do with Trump firing Comey according to Trump's own words.
Of course Trump said he was going to do it anyway. This is Donald Trump we are talking about here. One of his major flaws is a fairly excessive amount of hubris. He is not about to give credit for his decisions to anyone else. His pride will not allow it. However, that does not change the fact that the firing of Comey was recommended, or if you prefer "hinted at" by other high ranking officials in our government. And it does not change the fact that the firing of Comey was justified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
