Reply to Turning off the lights at the FBI

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Turning off the lights at the FBI"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If Hillary wins, she should basically destroy the FBI as we know it. Not even Hoover would have interfered so brazenly in a presidential election (and tolerated leaks like this). Who would have thought that the October surprise would not be from Putin's FSB but rather from a rogue FBI?! The FBI culture needs a total re-boot, and the best way to do it is to break the agency up and transfer its various functions to more accountable agencies.

[/quote]

Sounds like you would have preferred that the rest of us not have knowledge of what was really going on with the Clintons, the DNC "behind the scenes" activities, etc. If not for the leaks, how would we know the truth?[/quote]

We don't know any "truth," we know innuendo. And the leaks have been entirely one sided and totally meant to smear Clinton - why else would a dead FBI Twitter suddenly have [i]Marc Rich[/i] papers? That was 16 years ago, the facts were known then. Sounds like you don't mind a partisan agency [i]so long as[/i] it favors your version of the truth. Why don't we know more about Donald's dealings with Putin, because we know there are issues.[/quote]

Dems didn't seem to mind Comey breaking SOP by announcing he wasn't recommending an indictment at that time. [b]The famed Rep predilection for talking out of your butt: as there was no evidence of a crime, no we didn't mind her not being indicted. We [i]did[/i] mind his little partisan rant at the expense of impartiality.[/b]

Apparently that Twitter is based on FOIA requests. From what I've read, if they get 3 FOIA requests for the same thing, they post it online instead of mailing them. I'm not FBI, so I can't confirm that that's true, but that's what I heard. Or it's a rogue FBI agent pissed that DOJ tried to squash their investigation(s). Who knows. [b]From a year's quiet account, they just suddenly released the Marc Rich papers, poof? Can I and twof of my friends request some JFK stuff. Seems more likely to be rogue agents and not, as they claim, an update automatically adding stuff.[/b]

The NYT already wrote about how the FBI hasnt found any direct connection between Trump and "the Russians." [b]Again, "so far." Donald, known cheat and swindler, is being given a courtesy that Hillary is not. They had had Weiner's computer since October 3 and still they waited till late October to announce - against tradition, sense, and the Hatch Act, even before having a warrant. Those emails could literally have nothing to do with Hillary, we don't know "so far," but Hill got tossed under the bus and Don, with at least three FBI investigations going did not. Why?
[/b]
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics