Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 160
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    41,245
    But Hillary....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    78,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    This investigator was the one who changed the classification of Hillary’s emails. He’s also the one who signed off on the Russia investigation and he was the one who interviewed Flynn

    Hmm
    Very simple explanation: they wrote the wording and didn't see any legal issues and then realized their wording choice was poor since the statute used those words. Very simple so anyone can understand it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,747
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Holy ****, reread your post. Lmfao
    I know what I said.

    fact: Mueller has brought in many people that donated to the Democrats. I have seen people that support Trump that think this is a problem, but do any of you here against Trump care/not care that there are so many Democrat donors being brought in? that certainly could show this investigation is biased against Trump.
    now imagine if Mueller instead had brought in many Republican donors, meaning that could show these people brought in would be biased for Trump. I guarantee those of you against Trump would see a problem with that.







    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    https://twitter.com/dznyc/status/937827822105776133


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    this Peter Stzrok was removed, but since we know that he was biased should that not then mean that everything that he has had a role in should be questioned/redone?



  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I know what I said.

    fact: Mueller has brought in many people that donated to the Democrats. I have seen people that support Trump that think this is a problem, but do any of you here against Trump care/not care that there are so many Democrat donors being brought in? that certainly could show this investigation is biased against Trump.
    now imagine if Mueller instead had brought in many Republican donors, meaning that could show these people brought in would be biased for Trump. I guarantee those of you against Trump would see a problem with that.










    this Peter Stzrok was removed, but since we know that he was biased should that not then mean that everything that he has had a role in should be questioned/redone?
    Not everyone has your level of intellectual integrity. I’m gonna repeat this slowly. Mueller can NOT possibly know who the people he hires support. If he were to try to find out before hiring them he would be breaking the law.
    I’m starting to think I’m speaking the wrong language. Let’s try this
    10101100100010000100111101110100110111010100101010 10100010111010101010100001111011000100010001001010 01110100011110001110001110011110001011011011101001 00011100111010001111000011110001110011010101010100 0111011001100110011001111000100111

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    78,103
    Robert Mueller is a Republican...I know facts don't matter and we need to pretend like this is Democrats attacking Trump.
    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    41,245
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Robert Mueller is a Republican...I know facts don't matter and we need to pretend like this is Democrats attacking Trump.
    Yeah but Hillary emails did Obama Uranium Franken with the candlestick in the library and Bill Clinton Lewinsky Haiti Benghazi.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,747
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Not everyone has your level of intellectual integrity. I’m gonna repeat this slowly. Mueller can NOT possibly know who the people he hires support. If he were to try to find out before hiring them he would be breaking the law.
    I’m starting to think I’m speaking the wrong language. Let’s try this
    10101100100010000100111101110100110111010100101010 10100010111010101010100001111011000100010001001010 01110100011110001110001110011110001011011011101001 00011100111010001111000011110001110011010101010100 0111011001100110011001111000100111
    are you aware that who certain people donated to is easily available. one could simple use google and find out who certain people donated to.
    then after it was common public knowledge these people were not removed. numerous people who had donated to Democrats give this probe a look of being biased.
    I repeat again if Mueller instead had brought in many Republican donors, meaning that could show these people brought in would be biased for Trump. I guarantee those of you against Trump would see a problem with that.







    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Robert Mueller is a Republican...I know facts don't matter and we need to pretend like this is Democrats attacking Trump.
    how many current Republicans in office have come out on the other side as Trump? come on now lets stop this ******** that anyone Republican couldn't possibly be biased against Trump.






    I guess this news can also go here, yet another person in Mueller's probe that is biased.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-so-proud.html

    Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: 'I am so proud'
    A top prosecutor who is now a deputy for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe praised outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she was fired in January by President Trump for refusing to defend his controversial travel ban.

    The email, obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, shows that on the night of Jan. 30, Andrew Weissmann wrote to Yates under the subject line, “I am so proud.”

    He continued, “And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.

    The disclosure follows confirmation that another Mueller investigator, FBI official Peter Strzok, was fired over the summer after allegedly sending anti-Trump texts to an FBI lawyer with whom he was romantically involved.

    His alleged actions revived concerns about the objectivity of the FBI probes of both Hillary Clinton’s email setup and Russia election meddling.

    Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the new Weissmann document an “astonishing and disturbing find.”

    “Andrew Weisman, a key prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team, praised Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates after she lawlessly thwarted President Trump,” he said in a statement. “How much more evidence do we need that the Mueller operation has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans?”

    The Jan. 30 email was sent at 9:50 p.m. from Weissmann’s government account, when he was still in the DOJ’s criminal division and before he was assigned to Mueller’s probe.

    The email was sent shortly after Trump fired Yates for refusing to defend the first version of his ban on travel from certain majority-Muslim countries.

    The president has seized on the reports about Strzok’s anti-Trump views, drawing attention to his role in the Clinton email investigation and referring to him as "tainted" and "very dishonest."

    Fox News confirmed that Strzok oversaw the FBI’s interviews with former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who pleaded guilty last week to lying to federal investigators.

    Strzok was also the person who softened former FBI Director James Comey’s language about the Clinton email investigation, changing the phrase “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.””



  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    are you aware that who certain people donated to is easily available. one could simple use google and find out who certain people donated to.
    then after it was common public knowledge these people were not removed. numerous people who had donated to Democrats give this probe a look of being biased.
    I repeat again if Mueller instead had brought in many Republican donors, meaning that could show these people brought in would be biased for Trump. I guarantee those of you against Trump would see a problem with that.









    how many current Republicans in office have come out on the other side as Trump? come on now lets stop this ******** that anyone Republican couldn't possibly be biased against Trump.






    I guess this news can also go here, yet another person in Mueller's probe that is biased.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-so-proud.html
    He cannot fire them for donations they make. It is a violation of their civil rights.

    HE CANNOT FIRE THEM FOR DONATIONS THEY MAKE. IT IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

    10010001110110110111000111010010010100101010100010 1010101010101010100101010101010

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    78,103
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Yeah but Hillary emails did Obama Uranium Franken with the candlestick in the library and Bill Clinton Lewinsky Haiti Benghazi.
    Lol. I would love to find out that Hillary emails Trump something like "thoughts and prayers" when all this is over.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,747
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    He cannot fire them for donations they make. It is a violation of their civil rights.

    HE CANNOT FIRE THEM FOR DONATIONS THEY MAKE. IT IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

    10010001110110110111000111010010010100101010100010 1010101010101010100101010101010
    I guess then this Peter Strzok should not have been removed. do you also want to argue about how it was unfair that he was removed? he was removed because of his bias.




    it should have been known/could have been known in advance before bringing them in. Mueller had the ability to find out this information before bringing these people in.

    could anyone imagine the backlash had Mueller brought in a bunch of Trump supporters. my goodness the left would be going nuts about how unfair it is and how they would have to be removed if the investigation was to be impartial. but instead they are more supporters of the other side, so no problem nothing to see here.



  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I guess then this Peter Strzok should not have been removed. do you also want to argue about how it was unfair that he was removed? he was removed because of his bias.




    it should have been known/could have been known in advance before bringing them in. Mueller had the ability to find out this information before bringing these people in.

    could anyone imagine the backlash had Mueller brought in a bunch of Trump supporters. my goodness the left would be going nuts about how unfair it is and how they would have to be removed if the investigation was to be impartial. but instead they are more supporters of the other side, so no problem nothing to see here.
    Nope. He couldn’t have known before he brought them in. It is a civil right violation. He couldn’t have considered their political leanings when hiring them. It is a civil rights violation. The only thing he can do is remove them if he sees any partisan behavior, which he did.
    You are being incredibly disingenuous. Unless of course your a bot.
    Again, some people are capable of things your not, intellectual integrity being one of them.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,747
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Nope. He couldn’t have known before he brought them in. It is a civil right violation. He couldn’t have considered their political leanings when hiring them. It is a civil rights violation. The only thing he can do is remove them if he sees any partisan behavior, which he did.
    You are being incredibly disingenuous. Unless of course your a bot.
    Again, some people are capable of things your not, intellectual integrity being one of them.
    so anti Trump texts are enough to get one person removed, but political donations to one side showing being partial to that side and against the other, not a problem.



  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    so anti Trump texts are enough to get one person removed, but political donations to one side showing being partial to that side and against the other, not a problem.
    Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, read it maybe. Again, honest people that have integrity can look at evidence and go where it takes them. Note that I said honest, which is probably why your having such a hard time with this.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,747
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, read it maybe. Again, honest people that have integrity can look at evidence and go where it takes them. Note that I said honest, which is probably why your having such a hard time with this.
    I see you saying honest so I counter that with people that show a bias to one side could end up being dishonest.
    it would nice to believe that people would not allow bias to impact them in this probe, but one should be able to see that having that bias could lead people to believe that the entire probe is comprised. not that anyone against Trump would give a damn, but it would be better to not have anything that made people think/assume the probe is compromised/tainted/biased.








    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...tics+-+Text%29

    'Over 10,000 texts' between ex-Mueller team officials found, after discovery of anti-Trump messages
    Justice Department officials are reading through “over 10,000 texts” between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Fox News has learned, after it emerged Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe following the discovery of anti-Trump messages between them.

    Department of Justice officials told Fox News they are in the process of going through the texts so they can hand them over to the House Intelligence Committee.

    Strzok, who was an FBI counterintelligence agent, had worked on the Mueller probe, but was reassigned to the FBI’s human resources division after the discovery of anti-Trump text messages with Page, with whom he was having an affair. Page was briefly on Mueller’s team, but since has returned to the FBI.

    The disclosure of those messages revived Republican concerns about the objectivity of Mueller’s probe.

    It’s unclear whether a significant number of the 10,000 texts have anything to do with Trump or the probe itself.

    Justice Department officials say the process of reading and redacting the texts could take “weeks,” and that the thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page span over “several months.”

    The review process comes as the committee also threatens to move forward with a contempt resolution against top DOJ and FBI officials barring an imminent breakthrough — after the agencies did not comply with a deadline to hand over long-sought information that goes well beyond text messages.

    Strzok is a focus of their efforts. House investigators have long regarded him as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the DOJ and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to direct the surveillance.

    Strzok briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, sources said. But within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

    Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok’s texts were cited in published reports by the New York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about the department’s refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok’s appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long sought by the Nunes team.

    The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House panel's demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.

    But Nunes voiced skepticism on Saturday.

    He said that after the Strzok texts were revealed, the DOJ expressed a “sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee’s long-standing demands” but added: “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”

    A DOJ spokeswoman said Sunday they will “continue to work with congressional committees to provide the information they request consistent with our national security responsibilities.”

    Fox News has learned that Strzok also oversaw the bureau’s interviews with ousted National Security Advisor Michael Flynn – who pleaded guilty Friday to lying to FBI investigators in the Russia probe.

    He also was present during the FBI’s July 2016 interview with Hillary Clinton at the close of the email investigation, shortly before then-FBI director James Comey called her actions “extremely careless” without recommending criminal charges.
    Peter Strzok has been shady and everything he has been involved with has to be seen as questionable.



  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    78,103
    Yea Devin Nunes calling anyone shady or casting any dispersions on others is incredibly laughable. He ran up to Daddy Trump with information from his investigation and ignored the proper protocol. He should have been removed and censured immediately but of course wasn't.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •