**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[BigHurt3515]

1 minute ago, RockRaines said:

These aholes better give all access to the camps in the various cities. I want to see what the hell has been going on. 

You still won't see the whole story or picture unless you can go there yourself.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, raBBit said:

If I could modify your comment that I largely agree with - any real conservative would be against Trump generally speaking. Republicans and Democrats don't really care what an individual does as long as they share the same party.

Trump is outside the media, IC and DC power structure. That's why they've all been against him since he won the primary. Regardless, we don't need to make it about partisanism or anything else. The bias is clear. Whether it aligns with typical political norms in America is irrelevant. Typical went out the window when Trump got elected.

Sztrok got removed from the FBI office by way. Probably because he was totally objective. 

All Im going to say is, the reason that the FBI, etc were out to get Trump, wasnt because he was Trump, its because they believed he was possibly breaking the law and that is their job.

Can you name any other Presidential campaign that has multiple people plead guilty to crimes?

Again I point to Pablo Escobar. If Pablo was a Democrat, and they investigate Pablo, its not necessarily because hes some outsider Democrat, maybe its because they have evidence he is breaking the law and they are doing their job.

Its a crazy world where I am the one defending the FBI/etc and the Republicans are the ones attacking them. But that is just how dangerous times have become. I cant wait to go back to our normally scheduled program where I get to the be the one defending the alleged criminals against the actions of the FBI/CIA. But things have gotten so backwards, that even I have to try and say the FBI isnt that bad. 

[RockRaines]

5 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

You still won't see the whole story or picture unless you can go there yourself.

Considering some of the camps are in Michigan that shouldn’t be tough. 

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

It is crazy. That's what Trump getting elected did. That's why McCain and HRC all of a sudden agreed on everything when Trump got elected. The power structure took a big wrench.

See we have different opinions about why things like that happened. My opinion is that it caused the rational people in the world to realize that Trump is an extreme danger and that we may have to suck up our differences momentarily to actually address a real threat.

I do agree, the power structure is all messed up. Instead of checks/balances, we are moving towards a cult of personality dictatorship. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

7 minutes ago, raBBit said:

1.) Comey said Clinton's actions were "grossly negligent" and Peter Sztrok, leader of the resistance and head Clinton investigator, changed the verbiage to "extremely careless." As a law professional, I know you understand the importance of that change.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

2.) They reopened the investigation, to their dismay, after it was exposed they ignored the initial discovery of additional emails found in the Weiner case. Read up on the FBI staffer who found Clinton emails on the Weiner laptop. 

3.) They (FBI) addressed this internally and it was covered in the IG report. They referred to the Trump-Russia stuff as an insurance policy if he got elected. You can disagree on how they handled things (I certainly do), but that's what they said. 

The FBI prejudged the outcome of the Clinton investigation when the investigation had just began. The same agents prejudged the outcome of the Trump-Russia investigation before it even began. This is textbook bias. 

I mean, "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless" don't really matter legally if you aren't charging her with anything.  Either is a really bad quote.  Both are negative connotations.  And whether "grossly negligent" or "extremely careless," we're talking about her handling of classified info.   We're not charging her, but she's lucky we aren't is the conclusion I take away from either quote.  If the FBI was in the pocket for Clinton, they would literally have just said, "no charges" and closed the investigation.

"To their dismay" is some serious editorializing.  I'm sure there were some people who were dismayed that the investigation was reopened, just like the FBI agents that leaked stuff to Nunes and Giuliani during the campaign had a bias.  It sure didn't help Clinton though!  And like with the ongoing Trump campaign investigation, if the FBI was in the tank for Clinton, they literally would have sat on that until after the election.

Since the Russia investigation was ongoing during the campaign, the Liberal FBI was really, really bad at their jobs if they said, "welp, no reason to bring this to light ahead of the election, but we'll REALLY have him if he is elected president and we continue the investigation!"  

SB said this better than I, but my read of the IG Report matches up with his "If anything I think that all of this has shown that Comey helped Trump because he thought Clinton was going to win and after her win he didnt want the right wing conspiracy groups to say that the FBI helped Clinton."

[illinilaw08]

6 minutes ago, raBBit said:

It is crazy. That's what Trump getting elected did. That's why McCain and HRC all of a sudden agreed on everything when Trump got elected. The power structure took a big wrench.

McCain has voted with Trump 83% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/john-mccain/

So... I'm not sure McCain and HRC have agreed on everything since McCain got elected...

[RockRaines]

Whoops. Now the airlines have pulled transportation from these morons. Maybe use Trump air?

[Dick Allen]

8 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

McCain has voted with Trump 83% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/john-mccain/

So... I'm not sure McCain and HRC have agreed on everything since McCain got elected...

Don't stop him, he's on a roll. Just like with Trump, it doesn't matter if just about everything he posts simply isn't true. 

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

I mean, "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless" don't really matter legally if you aren't charging her with anything.  Either is a really bad quote.  Both are negative connotations.  And whether "grossly negligent" or "extremely careless," we're talking about her handling of classified info.   We're not charging her, but she's lucky we aren't is the conclusion I take away from either quote.  If the FBI was in the pocket for Clinton, they would literally have just said, "no charges" and closed the investigation.

"To their dismay" is some serious editorializing.  I'm sure there were some people who were dismayed that the investigation was reopened, just like the FBI agents that leaked stuff to Nunes and Giuliani during the campaign had a bias.  It sure didn't help Clinton though!  And like with the ongoing Trump campaign investigation, if the FBI was in the tank for Clinton, they literally would have sat on that until after the election.

Since the Russia investigation was ongoing during the campaign, the Liberal FBI was really, really bad at their jobs if they said, "welp, no reason to bring this to light ahead of the election, but we'll REALLY have him if he is elected president and we continue the investigation!"  

SB said this better than I, but my read of the IG Report matches up with his "If anything I think that all of this has shown that Comey helped Trump because he thought Clinton was going to win and after her win he didnt want the right wing conspiracy groups to say that the FBI helped Clinton."

Illini,

I think most reasonable people know that the FBI/etc lean Republican. The real problem was that Comey tried to predict the future and get in front of a problem that he thought may potentially exist. He thought by doing this, when Clinton was elected he could show the Republican's that he did everything in his power to try and convict her.

Unfortunately he didnt realize that he was dealing with people who simply wont believe what doesnt fit into their narrative. Therefore he not only hurt Clinton (and in the process helped Trump) but he also gave Trump and his supporters ammunition to attack the FBI. Which of course is really odd, as the FBI helped them win. But we arent deal with facts or reality, we are living in a world where the President's lawyer claims that the President could shoot Comey and not be indicted.

For most of my life it was implausible to believe that a lawyer/former mayor would say the President could shoot the FBI director. 

[RockRaines]

There is no policy.

There is a law that only congress can change, we are only following the law.

The bible wants us to follow the law

A policy does exist.

I changed the policy

 

[Soxbadger]

11 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Again, you can't use past norms in the Trump era but I am glad you know the political biases of people who work undercover. I'd rather use the evidence pertaining to the employees who's opinions and wishes were exposed. I don't hypotheticals or historical norms, I have the evidence.  

But since all of the IC is right wing, bring some quotes from Hayden, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Strzok, McCabe, etc. Any of the public figures from CIA/FBI. Bring their opinions on Trump/HRC. Let's see who they prefer in reality as opposed to historically or hypothetically. 

 

I dont need quotes. Multiple people who have worked for me have been hired by the FBI. Ive been interviewed by the FBI different times as a character witness for potential agents. I personally know people in the FBI. None of them shared my personal political ideas, but I recommended all of them because I felt that they would do their best to enforce the laws, despite what their own beliefs were. 

You have a little bit of evidence that some workers at the FBI were Democrats. You fail to respond to the fact that Wray is a Republican, Comey is a Republican, Mueller is a Republican, Louis Freeh is a Democrat, William Sessions Republican, William Webster Republican, James Adams Republican, Clarence Kelley Republican, J Edgar Hoover Republican.

So despite the fact that since the inception of the FBI there has been only 1 Democrat FBI director, your position is that there is no evidence that FBI leans Republican...

And you can absolutely use past norms since before the Trump era. The people who were investigating Trump were all hired BEFORE TRUMP ERA. The people investigating Clinton were all hired BEFORE TRUMP ERA. Not a single person involved was hired after Trump became President. 

But again, a few text messages from FBI agents is more indicative than the fact that almost every FBI director in the history of the FBI is Republican.

Is that really what you believe? I mean honestly, not just some sort of talking point, do you actually believe deep down that the FBI does not lean Republican? 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

3 hours ago, raBBit said:

Inspector General releases damaging information on left wing establishment power structure and you guys all regroup to focus on some left wing conspiracy from years ago pertaining to one of the guys asking the IG questions Laughable.

 

5 minutes ago, raBBit said:

1.) Testimonial evidence. Always of the highest order.

2.) I've repeatedly say we shouldn't talk about this from a partisan lens. Trump's an outsider. The IC is against him. If you disagree with that I don't know what to tell you. 

3.) Why are we even talking about this. Of course I fail tto respond to a bunch of FBI people when I am talking about stuff that is a relevant and has ramifications today. I get that you have to distract but this isn't even a good point.

4.) Can you quote me there? Of course not. I said that what is typical or what was the case in the past doesn't matter in the Trump era.

5.) So you're choosing to apply stereotypes the FBI agents even though their opinions and political beliefs are public information? They hated Trump. They said they'd stop him. They referred to themselves as the "resistance." They called the people that voted for Trump "stupid POS." They were prepared to clear HRC from wrongdoing before the investigation finished. They declared Trump guilty with the Russia left-wing conspiracy before the investigation ended. Stop using stereotypes. There are facts available. 

6.) I never said the FBI isn't historically republican. I've said the opposite in fact. You're deliberately misrepresenting me. The partisan nature of the the FBI throughout history seems like a great thread though. Maybe you can make a thread about it. But what I am talking about is the pervasive and exposed bias and deviation from protocol for not only the FBI, but the CIA and other elements of the Obama administration. For someone who supposedly read the IG report, you really don't know all that much about it. 

 

Youre the one who called it the "left wing power structure." I am just wondering how its "left wing" when almost every director is from the Republican party. Why did you say left wing if we shouldnt talk about it as a partisan lens? The implication of "left wing power structure" is that the CIA/FBI etc are not Republican.

I have no problem with the idea that the FBI was looking into Trump because they think he is a criminal. I have no problem with the idea that the FBI wasnt enthusiastic about having a criminal as President. 

Again you are the one who keeps saying things like "left wing" conspiracy. I keep trying to point out you are the one who keeps making it political. If you dont want to make it political, quit with the left wing conspiracy nonsense. The people investigating Trump arent left wing. Mueller is not left wing. Comey wasnt left wing.

Maybe they were anti-Trump, but just because your anti-Trump doesnt mean your left wing. I honestly dont know if you just forget what you write or you purposefully keep saying "left wing" and then hope people forget about it. 

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, raBBit said:

I say left wing conspiracy half in jest because plenty people just call facts right wing conspiracy when it doesn't follow their narrative. 

I dont believe Ive ever used the phrase right wing conspiracy. And its impossible to know if its in jest or not. Im not going to defend what other people do who are not me, but I dont exactly go out of my way to defend the people who say those type of things.

Ill take your statement about the left wing power structure and that is the end of it.

As for the quotes, I could argue how they are all meaningless, I could argue that they show bias. At the end of the day, (imo) there is no smoking gun of purposefully abusing power due to political reasons.

I can definitely be persuaded that the FBI was not favorable to Trump being elected because they were worried he was compromised by Russia, worried he was a criminal and worried that he would use the power of the Presidency to break the law.

The real question is, shouldnt the FBI be worried about that? Shouldnt they actually have fear if they believe the potential next President is a criminal and going to break the law? Shouldnt they be concerned if they evidence that the President may be compromised by a foreign entity that is adversarial to the US interests?

My opinion is that is their job and if they felt that way about the Democratic nominee, I would hope they would spend every day doing everything they could to determine if it is true or not. And I would hope that if deep down they thought it was true, that they would do what they could to try and collect evidence to bring that person down. Even if that person was someone I would consider voting for.

Because the reality is, if they had gone public about the Russia investigation before the election, Trump likely doesnt win. So if anything, they protected him. But thats just my opinion. 

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, raBBit said:

I guess it really just depends if they make the left look good or not?

Just really depends on my opinion. I dont think this is about left or right. I think this is about the danger of Trump. And I think that sometimes law officers get over zealous when they go after criminals. No different then catching a drug dealer, etc. Criminals are criminals to them, and I think that a lot of people think Trump broke some laws and the FBI's job is to catch criminals. So of course FBI agents are going to want to get the biggest scalp in American history. (No pun intended, but that is just too good.)

[illinilaw08]

35 minutes ago, raBBit said:

1.) Testimonial evidence. Always of the highest order.

2.) I've repeatedly say we shouldn't talk about this from a partisan lens. Trump's an outsider. The IC is against him. If you disagree with that I don't know what to tell you. 

3.) Why are we even talking about this. Of course I fail tto respond to a bunch of FBI people when I am talking about stuff that is a relevant and has ramifications today. I get that you have to distract but this isn't even a good point.

4.) Can you quote me there? Of course not. I said that what is typical or what was the case in the past doesn't matter in the Trump era.

5.) So you're choosing to apply stereotypes the FBI agents even though their opinions and political beliefs are public information? They hated Trump. They said they'd stop him. They referred to themselves as the "resistance." They called the people that voted for Trump "stupid POS." They were prepared to clear HRC from wrongdoing before the investigation finished. They declared Trump guilty with the Russia left-wing conspiracy before the investigation ended. Stop using stereotypes. There are facts available. 

6.) I never said the FBI isn't historically republican. I've said the opposite in fact. You're deliberately misrepresenting me. The partisan nature of the the FBI throughout history seems like a great thread though. Maybe you can make a thread about it. But what I am talking about is the pervasive and exposed bias and deviation from protocol for not only the FBI, but the CIA and other elements of the Obama administration. For someone who supposedly read the IG report, you really don't know all that much about it. 

Says the guy who has convicted Clinton on e-mails and exonerated Trump on Russia...

Also of note, notwithstanding any perceived bias (and every one of your quotes above was from Strozk who does not equal the entire FBI), the IG Report says that the conclusion to not charge Hillary Clinton was not motivated by partisan bias.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-500-page-inspector-generals-report-in-900-words/

You are cherry picking quotes to get to the conclusion you want to get to - that the FBI was in the tank for Clinton and actively sabotaging Trump - when the IG Report does not agree with that, and the acts taken by the FBI don't support that conclusion.

[StrangeSox]

I still want to know who the "objective" people referred to earlier were.

 

Also who changed the thread title a few weeks ago and why

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

5 minutes ago, raBBit said:

from 3 hours ago. 

I wasnt saying it was a "right wing conspiracy" I was identifying a group of people. That is completely different. You didnt bold the entire statement:

right wing conspiracy groups

And to be fair, I think there are also left wing conspiracy groups.

 

(edit)

But to be fair my statement about not using the phrase was poorly worded. I should have said "I dont call things right wing conspiracies" which is what I meant. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Dam8610]

4 hours ago, raBBit said:

1.) I think the evidence of the HRC investigation shows she clearly and recklessly mishandled confidential information and if she was some mid level government staff she would be in jail. She and her team understood that as they deleted emails, used BleachBit to destroy the servers, somehow got multiple crucial Clinton employees immunity, and even had one employee go to reddit for information on how to destroy evidence only to be caught and exposed. Past that, HRC got caught lying every time she spoke about it publicly. The people running that investigation we know were biased.

The Russia Probe hasn't yielded anything that has really damaged Trump. Former members of his campaign ran a real estate scam in the Ukraine to evade taxes, lied to some FBI agents and failed to report as an agent. George Pappadoulos was a 27 year old who unwittingly(?) lied to an FBI source about some relations with Russia. I am not even sure what crime is being alleged as it pertains to Trump. Every primary presidential candidate meets with other foreign leaders/influencers. 

2.) This is all true. I don't really understand that. Horowitz put forward a report that showed clear bias so I am curious what is driving his recommendation. It's not like government has a history of holding itself accountable though so not a shock to me.

I am familiar with Perry Bacon and I would be careful going around parroting his opinions if I were you. He doesn't have the best track record.

3.) This is I disagree with. The bias is pervasive. There's no need to cherry pick. Read a few pages from the report. His recommendation I disagree with. I am just curious why so many people from the FBI have been fired. Sztrok got removed too now. 

Re: Bolded: The investigation isn't completed and nothing of consequence has been released regarding Trump while more and more people and things connected to Trump are subpoenaed, indicted, agreeing to pleas, etc. Nothing of consequence has come out about Trump because the investigation is still in the information gathering phase.

[caulfield12]

11 hours ago, raBBit said:

1.) I think the evidence of the HRC investigation shows she clearly and recklessly mishandled confidential information and if she was some mid level government staff she would be in jail. She and her team understood that as they deleted emails, used BleachBit to destroy the servers, somehow got multiple crucial Clinton employees immunity, and even had one employee go to reddit for information on how to destroy evidence only to be caught and exposed. Past that, HRC got caught lying every time she spoke about it publicly. The people running that investigation we know were biased.

The Russia Probe hasn't yielded anything that has really damaged Trump. Former members of his campaign ran a real estate scam in the Ukraine to evade taxes, lied to some FBI agents and failed to report as an agent. George Pappadoulos was a 27 year old who unwittingly(?) lied to an FBI source about some relations with Russia. I am not even sure what crime is being alleged as it pertains to Trump. Every primary presidential candidate meets with other foreign leaders/influencers. 

2.) This is all true. I don't really understand that. Horowitz put forward a report that showed clear bias so I am curious what is driving his recommendation. It's not like government has a history of holding itself accountable though so not a shock to me.

I am familiar with Perry Bacon and I would be careful going around parroting his opinions if I were you. He doesn't have the best track record.

3.) This is I disagree with. The bias is pervasive. There's no need to cherry pick. Read a few pages from the report. His recommendation I disagree with. I am just curious why so many people from the FBI have been fired. Sztrok got removed too now. 

Name the last time a prominent political or military leader was actually jailed for #1.   Did they jail General Petraeus?   

Shouldn’t all the Trump administration officials using personal emails for government business/consulting with lobbyists also be under investigation?

In what world would locking up Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush (prison torture/related coverups/totally misrepresenting the case for the 2nd Iraq War to the UN) actually lead to a positive result?  Do we want to set the precedent that the party which controls the WH should exact revenge on the other side every 4 years and set out to undo every past policy enacted?

Edited June 21, 2018 by caulfield12

[Middle Buffalo]

16 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Also who changed the thread title a few weeks ago and why

Good question. I didn't even notice, and I'd like to know who/why as well. 

[illinilaw08]

14 hours ago, raBBit said:

1.) I think the evidence of the HRC investigation shows she clearly and recklessly mishandled confidential information and if she was some mid level government staff she would be in jail. She and her team understood that as they deleted emails, used BleachBit to destroy the servers, somehow got multiple crucial Clinton employees immunity, and even had one employee go to reddit for information on how to destroy evidence only to be caught and exposed. Past that, HRC got caught lying every time she spoke about it publicly. The people running that investigation we know were biased.

The Russia Probe hasn't yielded anything that has really damaged Trump. Former members of his campaign ran a real estate scam in the Ukraine to evade taxes, lied to some FBI agents and failed to report as an agent. George Pappadoulos was a 27 year old who unwittingly(?) lied to an FBI source about some relations with Russia. I am not even sure what crime is being alleged as it pertains to Trump. Every primary presidential candidate meets with other foreign leaders/influencers. 

2.) This is all true. I don't really understand that. Horowitz put forward a report that showed clear bias so I am curious what is driving his recommendation. It's not like government has a history of holding itself accountable though so not a shock to me.

I am familiar with Perry Bacon and I would be careful going around parroting his opinions if I were you. He doesn't have the best track record.

3.) This is I disagree with. The bias is pervasive. There's no need to cherry pick. Read a few pages from the report. His recommendation I disagree with. I am just curious why so many people from the FBI have been fired. Sztrok got removed too now. 

Rabbit, your view of the FBI here literally makes me think of the Underpants Gnome episode of South Park:

Step 1: Make statements, and take actions that harm Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election while not publicizing your investigation of Donald Trump.

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Donald Trump is defeated!

Final point here.  It's possible that individuals investigating the Clinton e-mail server did not want Donald Trump elected President AND there was no partisan bias in the decision not to bring charges.  Both of those things can be true!  Unless the IG was also very biased (which would be a silly argument to make based on the fact that the Report had unflattering stuff to say all the way around), his conclusion that there was no partisan bias in not bringing charges against Clinton should be pretty solid evidence of that fact.

[Quin]

It was knightni after I proposed it on the mod board so that we could have a less charged / more clear topic title.

Otherwise it's a race every year to get the "Bigly Smart" thread vs. the "MAGA!" thread.

[Jack Parkman]

While there are conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political aisle, from my experience liberals are more likely to dissociate themselves from whackos while conservatives tend to feed them and cultivate new crazy ideas, so long that it supports their agenda

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Middle Buffalo]

I like Trent Reznor's thoughts on the current political environment.

"But what Donald Trump is doing is concerning and infuriating — and it’s not the conservative agenda, it’s not a question of religious preference, it’s not a question of should government be big or small. I don’t have any problem with those topics. But the disregard for decency and truth and civility is what’s really disheartening. It feels like a country that celebrates stupidity is really taking it up a notch."

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Do you watch the MSM? It's all Russia stuff. That's full on embrace of a politically motivated conspiracy theory from the establishment left. 

Well see what happens when Mueller is done with his report. But special counsel investigating the President is big news. I know you werent around for Kenneth Starr, but that was all over the news all the time. The Mueller investigation is news, irrespective of the outcome of the investigation.