Must say, watching the board collectively come together to call a Lewk a dumbass really brings out that holiday cheer :heart:
Printable View
Must say, watching the board collectively come together to call a Lewk a dumbass really brings out that holiday cheer :heart:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Lewk is not alone in this. Conservatives are starting to imply that what Strzok did may be grounds for firing him. Conservatives with large audiences are calling for the FBI to be "cleansed", in response to this story. Lewk may have his bizarre fetishes, but on this matter he's not an outlier. At best, these people are suggesting that Strzok should be sanctioned in various ways for tainting, with his mere involvement, a potential criminal investigation of great importance to national security. Trump's core voters are buying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The thresholds between bias affecting your work and criminal activity are not the same.
Lewk is going further than merely talking of tainting and in talking of the fifth etc is speaking in terms of crimes being committed. Without specifying what crimes.
I presume the idea is that it's somehow criminal to influence a federal investigation due to personal bias.
Meanwhile, Lewk-endorsed state media is giving credence to the idea that Mueller obtaining transition-team emails from a govt. third party is illegal and possibly a sign of a coup being underway. A coup.
Source?
Kelly Anne is a Trump employee not a journalist for Fox AFAIK. Quoting someone on Trump's side is not the same as Fox making the claim.
Hannity is Fox.
The other two are again quoting GOP sources.
The text on the banner wasn't in reference to anything Conway said. It was in reference to the hosts' comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK590Y4NqyY&t=1m44s
The other links suggests that Fox and a growing number of GOP politicians are aligned on this matter.Quote:
So the investigation in to Donald Trump’s campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes. And to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that’s true, we have a coup on our hands in America. And Congress must force the FBI and the individuals involved to come clean on what counter-espionage agents meant by, “insurance policy” to “protect the country” from Donald Trump’s presidency.
No you don't. Show me where it says Congress can't pull up whoever the hell they want in front of committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well if he pleads the 5th wouldn't that be interesting?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If he were to strip naked, shout "I am a chicken", bend over and start pecking at the floor then wouldn't that be interesting?
Yeah that would be pretty interesting to see an FBI agent do something like that. Would probably lead people to question his competency.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why would he plead the fifth?
You're getting confused, Lewk. You talked about a Congressional investigation and I replied on the same topic. Now you're talking about any committee meeting of any kind whatsoever. That's not the same topic. You show me where Congress has launched an investigation despite lacking any predicating wrong to prompt such an investigation in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Shadiest admin ever.
https://www.axios.com/jeff-sessions-...b81417eb1.html
Almost as disgusting as Nunes's antics with the propaganda memo.
Republican politicians, Fox and all their supporters... are... well.
https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/stat...36767384408069
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-...ry?id=52592241
Can't decide of Republicans are genuinely that stupid or just think everyone else is.
Fucking "secret society".
Look at lewk. the answer is "both"
If that one is to easy, check dread's recent behavior in the NN thread.
We'll see how it goes, more e-mails are going to come to light. I still want to see him justify some of the things we already know about. Preferably under oath.
Or what Lewk himself said in the Trump 2016 thread before Trump won the nomination. Apparently, Lewkowski himself is a hopelessly partisan Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...es-memo-public
Twitter Link
Cue intense fapping over photos of Gorsuch.
approved their own memo, denied the release of the opposition's. The GOP propaganda machine is going all in on this one.
I'm working on a series of erotic comics depicting a naked Gorsuch attempting to recover a trove of bleached love-letters between two FBI employees in order to save a fetus from death by five regulations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...t-society.html
Heh - the whole secret society thing is a non-starter but the rest of it is quite interesting. Would absolutely love to see him repeat pleading the 5th a dozen times on live TV.
I'm enjoying seeing your pointed silence re. the attacks on national security, law enforcement and some of the most important safeguards of democracy.
Should the FBI be attacked if they held Hillary Clinton to a different standard? Should the FBI as a *political institution* get flack for the unprofessional actions of Peter Strzok and his side piece?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It is entertaining that you feel parts of law enforcement should not be viewed skeptically.
I like how you mention that law enforcement is an important safeguard of democracy. I fully agree on that at least. Which is why it is all the more important that we leave no stone un-turned and that we ensure that institution isn't rotten with political bias.
Can someone catch me up on this - what's Strzok supposed to have done apart from express a critical opinion of Trump in a private communication?
One should not criticise the God Emperor of Mankind, that is heresy.
What's important is to not subvert the rule of law by attempting to obstruct or hamper an investigation involving powerful people that was launched through a bipartisan effort by legislators because of compelling evidence of attacks on a country's democratic process, not to mention reasonable suspicion of crimes committed by American nationals in influential positions. There is currently no evidence for dangerous institutional political bias at the FBI that is strong enough to justify undermining the investigation, and these partisan attacks on the FBI serve to inject precisely the kind of dangerous bias you say you want to weed out. If there is a rot, it can be found within a small but growing subsection of congress. Unlike gangsta rap, this bullshit jeopardizes your nation, and your infantile attempts to defend the indefensible only serve to expose your degeneracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
He had an affair but didn't pay his mistress off like you're supposed to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Question, what are your thoughts on Mueller? If you think he's doing good work then you believe his action to get rid of Strzok off the investigation was a good one. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That being said there are questions about what the 'insurance policy' he thought there was about the possibility of Trump being the president.
In addition we have his handling of the Clinton e-mail scandal:
https://nypost.com/2017/12/04/fbi-ag...-clinton-memo/
"Records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Clinton’s private email server as the second-highest-ranking official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s draft language describing Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” a source told CNN."
Furthermore the concern is weather the FBI had already decided to clear Clinton prior to the investigation being finished. Which depending on what is uncovered could lead to perjury charges for Comey.
Now, given the way most things happen in Washington we won't see a whole lot of charges for anything however it would still be amusing political theory to watch Strzok plead the 5th since it makes him look guilty as all hell.
Well the affair proves he's a liar and a cheat. That shows his lack of character but isn't illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Do you actually understanding what pleading the 5th is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You still haven't said why on Earth you think he would do that, rather than just saying it would be amusing. What criminal offence do you think he could self-incriminate on that he would please the 5th over? Last I checked not liking your God Emperor is not actually a criminal offence.
This reads like someone's deranged bachelor uncle's facebook timeline.
It was a good decision, not because Strzok heads some sort of secret cabal but because 1. the risk of partisan attacks on the investigation due to the mere appearance of bias 2. the demonstration of poor character and 3. the risk that Strzok might be vulnerable to blackmail that might jeopardize the investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Do try to keep up.Quote:
That being said there are questions about what the 'insurance policy' he thought there was about the possibility of Trump being the president.
"His handling"? This was an alteration that was reviewed by everyone else involved, and accepted as the official position. The reason for this should be obvious: the "gross negligence" statutory wording is not compatible with the decision not to prosecute. The decision not to prosecute reflects the FBI's best and most thoroughly reasoned assessment of the situation at the time. The "gross negligence" wording would therefore have been wholly inappropriate from a legal standpoint.Quote:
In addition we have his handling of the Clinton e-mail scandal:
https://nypost.com/2017/12/04/fbi-ag...-clinton-memo/
"Records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Clinton’s private email server as the second-highest-ranking official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s draft language describing Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” a source told CNN."
Comey and others had determined before the entire investigation was complete that they could not prosecute Clinton under any specific statutes because they could not prove guilty intent or that she believed the information would be used against US interests. You may disagree with his interpretation of the law and his knowledge of how these statutes had previously been interpreted and by the DoJ, but the disagreement isn't such that the "wrong" interpretation would land anyone in court--let alone jail.Quote:
Furthermore the concern is weather the FBI had already decided to clear Clinton prior to the investigation being finished. Which depending on what is uncovered could lead to perjury charges for Comey.
The only people looking guilty here are Trump & Co. and their enablers in congress. You, meanwhile, are looking increasingly corrupt.Quote:
Now, given the way most things happen in Washington we won't see a whole lot of charges for anything however it would still be amusing political theory to watch Strzok plead the 5th since it makes him look guilty as all hell.
Justice must be impartial, but must also be seen to be impartial. After the text messages were released and the GOP decided to make a thing of them it was better to get rid of him than have them use him as an excuse to undermine the probe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I mean, they're going to do that anyway but no sense in making their lives easier.
Quote:
That being said there are questions about what the 'insurance policy' he thought there was about the possibility of Trump being the president.
This probably refers to the Trump-Russia investigation which was getting started at the time of the text. I suggest that this is probably referring to how vigorously/aggressively they should pursue the investigation. The person on the other end of the text probably said 'hey we can take it slow, no reason to think this assclown will win', hence his in hindsight rather prescient response.Quote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office for that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …
I reckon that FBI agents probably don't discuss top sekrit deep stat black ops to depose a legitimately elected president of the united states in unecrypted text messages using phrases liked 'insurance policy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04cQuote:
"Records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Clinton’s private email server as the second-highest-ranking official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s draft language describing Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” a source told CNN."
Is there any reason at all to think this? Why would the FBI do that?Quote:
Furthermore the concern is weather the FBI had already decided to clear Clinton prior to the investigation being finished. Which depending on what is uncovered could lead to perjury charges for Comey.
What... what do you think he's going to plead the 5th for? Thinking Trump is an ass?Quote:
Now, given the way most things happen in Washington we won't see a whole lot of charges for anything however it would still be amusing political theory to watch Strzok plead the 5th since it makes him look guilty as all hell.
The only thing that's amusing here is how quickly you've brought into this incredibly transparent Republican to manufacture a 'scandal' at the FBI over absolutely fuck all. I mean, they've got shit all except a few texts bitching about Trump and various others, and they've somehow turned this into Paul Fucking Ryan saying 'we need a purge of the FBI' and you're sat there going 'well, this seems legit'.
I don't generally have a very high opinion of you, but even I thought you were a bit better than this.
So, what you're saying is, he should run for POTUS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There is some evidence suggesting the FBI had determined, before the investigation had been concluded--not before it had begun, mind you--that they probably could not bring charges against Clinton on this matter, based on their understanding of how the relevant statutes had been interpreted by the DoJ in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Which is not unreasonable. It is rare towards the end of any investigation to not have already concluded how it is going, but you still need to complete the investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
To literally have no clue how an investigation is going before the very end of it is extremely rare and unusual.
Increasingly common :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politi...ter/index.html
State so deep.