Chainging the language on the HRC statement not concerning?Originally Posted by Julio3000
The memo being written months before the investigation was over not concerning?
Please Julio. Didn't think you would show this level of partisianship.
Chainging the language on the HRC statement not concerning?
The memo being written months before the investigation was over not concerning?
Please Julio. Didn't think you would show this level of partisianship.
I mean why would the subject of a fbi investigation not have their interviews transcribed or recorded?
Who needs that level of procedure when it comes to HRC.
holy ****, you're still talking about her and something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
do better
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
It has everything to do with the topic at hand because you have to prove bias not just in this case but in cases prior. Otherwise it's just sour grapes from trump supporters because what other similar action is the comparison point?
Nixon/Watergate
No...we are trying to determine if peter Strzok actions were different based in party lines.
Watergate is irrelevant. I know you guys want the HRC investigation to go away because it proves the fbi bias no only exists but it impacts their work. Different justice system for different people.
Natural Immunity Croc
You could answer this question for yourself quite easily with a couple of minutes of dedicated googling.
The real answer is obvious.
Natural Immunity Croc
So, my question to you is: do you want to know the answer, or are you content to live in an extremist partisan fog of conspiracy and half-truths?
Please share why it made sense to not record the interviews for HRC and couple that with a 'revision' of a report to eliminate legal actionable language.
Natural Immunity Croc
Pot ... meet kettle?
Because, for the history of the FBI it has been their decided policy NOT to record interviews. One reason for this is that it was determined that what they considered to be useful interrogation techniques could appear to be unfair and prejudicial if presented to a jury. Now, you can reasonably argue that it's bad policy that is unfriendly to potential defendants, but that was the policy.
Under AG Holder there was a very contentious review of this policy, and new guidelines were issued circa 2014 that the Bureau would express a preference for videotaped interviews of subjects in custody.
So, the takeaway is that it's never been FBI policy to record interviews, but guidelines were issued to express a preference for recordings for subjects in custody. So HRC not being recorded was not in violation of policy, and, it's certainly worth noting that while she was interviewed by the FBI in the course of investigation, she did so voluntarily and not as a suspect in custody, so the new guidance didn't even apply.
As for the language in the memo, it makes sense that if it were determined that there was no chargeable action, the language of the statement would reflect that. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
So, you've presented 3 items: the Mills/Abedin interviews, the lack of recording of the HRC interview, and the revision of the language in Comey's memo.
In the first case, no competent prosecutor would try to wring a charge out of the emails cited in the Daily Caller article you posted. The appearance of the word "server" in an years-old email chain with no material connection is not going to cut it. The second I've addressed in this post. The third I've addressed previously.
If you want to continue to take the Sean Hannity/Daily Caller line on this, that's up to you. I've told you, with specificity, why I think you're wrong, and your response has been "I'm right because these issues that you've addressed have never been addressed." If those explanations don't satisfy you? Ok, that's your right. But don't pretend that entirely plausible answers to your questions don't exist.
Hmm. Well, you've consistently misrepresented what I've said about l'affaire Trump, pulling the conspiracy theory card when I've been quite measured and qualified about what I've actually alleged.
I've consistently said that I think the preponderance of circumstantial evidence requires thorough investigation, and that I'm not drawing aconclusions about the outcome, despite my suspicions. You've been...well, less measured in your opinions. And, thus far, considerably more wrong.
I remember mixing it up with you about Flynn, when you took me rigorously to task for saying that he'd been fired for lying, based on public statements by the administration. Do you want to revisit that one, now that he has literally pleaded guilty to lying and the WH has acknowledged it?
Come back and gloat when the investigation is over and it exonerates Trump and his "campaign proper." Until then, it seems like you'd hold your powder, since you've been wrong about pretty much every element of this from day one. I'm pretty content on where I've been on this, relative to you.
Prosecute the case.
Isolate, with specificity, actual wrongdoing.
Or you can beat your silly drum of "I'm more righter than you" a little longer. Either way it's an entertaining act.
I'm not in a position to prosecute the case. I am in only a position to point out that you've been consistently wrong about it, based on what we currently know. If you're hung up on pots and kettles, I feel like we need to consider all the cookwear that's been at issue.
It bears pointing out that thethe is talking about an investigation that is already complete.
Wrongdoing, with specificity? Two guilty pleas.
There's just a massive misconstruction of what's going on here. I'm calling our homey out for making specious allegations about an investigation that is done and dusted. You're talking about an investigation that is not complete but which has already borne more fruit, and doing so with a particularly bad-faith Procrustean construction. It's of a piece with how you've always argued it, though.
How so?
You're saying that the Clinton email investigation, finest fruit of the brave Benghazi infowarriors in Congress, is NOT over, despite the FBI's conclusion?
This is probably where I should say something about how really smart people have told me that there's some particular virtue in believing someone who persistently maintains their innocence.
I’m pretty sure that the entire premise of thethe’s argument is that the FBI investigation was corrupt, thereby negating it entirely. No?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote