jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

The NYC office leaked news about the laptop almost immediately — within days of its being seized. This preceded any “sitting on it” that may have been done.

The IG report has all this info:

1) there were anti-Clinton FBI agents in the NYC office
2) Comey sent his letter to Congress about Weiner’s Laptop because he was afraid of leaks

Separately, Nunes is on video saying he was told by “good FBI agents” about the laptop in late September which is when it was found

Giuliani was also told about the laptop according to his own words, so Comey’s fears were justified.

The fact that anti-Clinton FBI agents had a direct impact hurting Clinton is as plain as day. Only your on antagonism towards Clinton prevents you from seeing it.

Slate sees the timeline differently:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/fbi-ignored-anthony-weiners-laptop-and-it-may-have-cost-hillary-clinton-the-election.html

And broke laws and protocols themselves.

Got it.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

The NYC office leaked news about the laptop almost immediately — within days of its being seized. This preceded any “sitting on it” that may have been done.

The IG report has all this info:

1) there were anti-Clinton FBI agents in the NYC office
2) Comey sent his letter to Congress about Weiner’s Laptop because he was afraid of leaks

Separately, Nunes is on video saying he was told by “good FBI agents” about the laptop in late September which is when it was found

Giuliani was also told about the laptop according to his own words, so Comey’s fears were justified.

The fact that anti-Clinton FBI agents had a direct impact hurting Clinton is as plain as day. Only your on antagonism towards Clinton prevents you from seeing it.

Clinton was artificially cleared by Clinton months prior by FBI superiors. Does that upset you too? What you are arguing for is that Clinton should have been allowed to break the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

You don’t sound like you’re anything but partisan.

I’m simply stating what happened. Leftists here are upset because FBI were upset about the laws being bent and broken for Clinton by their superiors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

The NYC office leaked news about the laptop almost immediately — within days of its being seized. This preceded any “sitting on it” that may have been done.

The IG report has all this info:

1) there were anti-Clinton FBI agents in the NYC office
2) Comey sent his letter to Congress about Weiner’s Laptop because he was afraid of leaks

Separately, Nunes is on video saying he was told by “good FBI agents” about the laptop in late September which is when it was found

Giuliani was also told about the laptop according to his own words, so Comey’s fears were justified.

The fact that anti-Clinton FBI agents had a direct impact hurting Clinton is as plain as day. Only your on antagonism towards Clinton prevents you from seeing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

I am the PP from above and for context, while Trump has pushed me to the left, I was moderate and was never a Clinton fan - either of them.

Here is the problem. The FBI had protocols in place that should have precluded what is now known as the Comey letter that was ultimately made public by Chaffetz. Were there things that the FBI did wrong with respect to Hillary? Absolutely. But they were bound, and Comey was pressured to take an action that IMO materially impacted the voter perceptions and ultimately the election. It is but one small piece in what is clearly a coordinated effort, along with all of the social media stuff, all of the Russia stuff etc. Because of the status of the Russia investigation at that time, there was no way it could have been disclosed, unless it was at the highest levels of our country. Since McConnell refused a direct request despite having been briefed fully, to make a bi-partisan statement with Obama, I lay some of this at his feet.

Comey, IMO was fully boxed because he was forced to send the letter (released by Chaffetz) as a result of pressure actions taken in the NY FBI Office. Actions, I should add, that Nunes, Giuliani, Prince, Stone and others were fully briefed on, and were part of. As such, this was clearly a coordinated effort and the right wing media drum banging on it was apparent at the time and is more apparent today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

You don’t sound like you’re anything but partisan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Fair enough. I've found a few on my own and all of them seem to ignore the fact that the FBI was sitting on information it had re: laptop/Weiner, and are complaining instead that someone 'told on them'. This is like someone cheating on their wife and then getting pissed off when someone sees them out with their affair partner, and tells the person's spouse. The focus is then on the person who told about the injustice, not the injustice itself.

Perhaps the upper personnel of the FBI should have acted within the law to begin with?

It was VERY clear to those of us paying attention that something was VERY corrupt in Clintonland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

I have posted, probably more than a hundred in different threads in this forum. Sorry, I cannot take the time to recreate it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

Can you lead me to those stories? I'm curious. I've read the report and am stunned that anyone would come to this conclusion without some severe dizziness.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is such a jerk. This forum sucks because of his constant banning and deleting of anyone who disagrees with him

He does work very, very hard to make sure dissenting views and opinions are stamped out. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

DP, for me, primary sources and a variety of what I consider to be real news sources, like Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Economist and other European outlets. But I agree with Jeff on this based on what I have read and from friends and contacts whom I consider to be reliable.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres plenty of dirt around. Probably enough to cover everyone. But as an American the “We’ll stop it” text should give us all chills.

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

I do wonder what publications you read/follow to come to these conclusions...

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is such a jerk. This forum sucks because of his constant banning and deleting of anyone who disagrees with him

And yet, here you are giving him clicks and complaining about it. Why don't you go boycott Starbucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Chills or not, actions are more important than words. Nothing about the Trump investigation was leaked or officially revealed before the election. If anyone was interested in stopping Trump, simply confirming the investigation to Harry Reid would have been enough. But, everyone in the FBI acted to protect Trump. On the other hand, NYC office FBI agents leaked information about Weiner's laptop forcing Comey to disclose its existence to Congress which led to the information being made public. The fact that rogue FBI agents had a direct affect in hurting Clinton during the campaign should give you far more chills than a simple text.

Giving credence to a bogus dossier is not protecting Trump. There is some reason to consider that perhaps Strozk started this whole thing. Details are still sketchy--but, he did go to London.

As far as "rogue" FBI agents--reporting that your superiors are possibly stalling an investigation is a whistleblower--not a "rogue" agent.

And, lest we forget: there is one person to blame for the email situation---Hillary Clinton. We now know that foreign government did hack into her computer --and, it is likely Russia. There is reason to believe that this happened while she was in Russia and used her email. She also emailed with Barack Obama on this unsecured server.
Don't blame the "rogue" agent.

Read the report.

What in the dossier has proven bogus? So far, to my eye, most of the fact laid out in it have been verified. There are a few items that are unverifiable, mostly because the parties involved were offed soon after the dossier was published.