'The FBI is Trumpland' and Donald Trump's top FBI fanboy
In The Guardian: 'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say
Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited. [...]
The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia,” with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.
We should take anonymous sources with a grain of salt. But we’re talking about the same organization that actively tried to undermine the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement; the organization that ran an widespread, unconstitutional surveillance program called COINTELPRO; that surveilled and threatened Martin Luther King Jr, Charlie Chaplin, gay people and too many on the left to count.
So it isn’t too hard to believe that people in the FBI might act to further their personal political views.
And here’s the Daily Beast: Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy
The man [Rudy Giuliani] who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress. [...]
“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”
Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent still working in that office. Tariche’s resignation letter from the bureau mentioned the Clinton probe, noting that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”
There’s a lot more in the Daily Beast article, including Giuliani’s links to Jim Kallstrom (the former head of the FBI’s New York office) and his long-time friendship with Louis Freeh (the former FBI director and the guy who appointed Kallstrom).
Kallstrom has called the Clintons a “crime family” and Hillary Clinton a “pathalogical liar” on TV. He’s also a Trump supporter and Trump has contributed over a million dollars to a charity he runs. Many of the NY based agents on the Weiner case used to work for Kallstrom. The interview with Kallstorm makes for interesting reading as he first denies, then acknowledges receiving information on active cases from current agents assigned to those cases. As you might imagine, that violates FBI policy.
As if this election cycle wasn’t nuts enough, alongside the resurrection of the KKK, American Nazis and assorted other reactionaries, the remnants of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI seem to be rearing their head as well.
Comments
Oh, I thought it all came from the Russians.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Dang!!
I was blaming Putin for my toilet backing up the other day when in reality it was the FBI. And when I stubbed my toe, I thought it was the KGB in action but instead it was Jim Comey.
I must thank subir for their truthiness. I shall now rest easier knowing who is truly at fault for the collapse of Western democracy.
Actually it wasn't Comey
You stubbed your toe because of misogyny.
But I can understand the confusion.
No, stubbed toes are caused by karma for being a Bernie Bro.
Twisted ankles is the Misogyny one I believe.
God, it is so easy to find snark in their ludicrous "Blame everyone but the person responsible" mental pretzeling...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Bernie Bros ARE misogynists. They're everything bad, but
they're misogynists above all--which, of course, is the only reason they did not prefer Hillary to the male candidate, what'shisname....the Sssocialissst.
Same for Obama boys.
As for the women who supported those candidates? They wanted only to be where the boys are.
And now, they're all just looking for free stuff. Like clean water. Oh, make no mistake, my friend. They're the lowest of the low. Know how I can tell? Good people back neocons.
I bet you thought that was funny.
I sure did.
Really Subir? You guys are reaching to the point of patheticness
I think Fred sums it up quite nicely...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Is patheticness a word?
I thought it was patheticity. Or perhaps patheticitude.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
It must be, my spellchecker didn't yell at me. :)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I believe the first greek root is pathos.
That word would then be the corresponding noun. Of course meaning has changed over time and with less formal usage.
(This sort of thing gets me eyerolls at home.)
Stein - Baraka
2016
Hmm.... Mine does.
You must have a much more forgiving Spellchecker!
I think irishking is correct, actually.
I like your new tag line, BTW. Makes me laugh every time!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I think you are foreseeing
I think you are foreseeing the future ... it makes me cringe. I'm sure that logic must be compelling to a number of kidlings. If the computer doesn't complain, it must be right.
~OaWN
Subir achieved Total Pathetocity
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
"Which is nice." -Spackler, Carl
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
yeah, he's got that going for him.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I used to watch
that shit Religiously in reruns. 'I'M COMING, ELIZABETH!' Never realized what he was saying for Years!
peace
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Little known fact
The FBI are the Russians.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
"Comey"
is actually shorthand for "commissar".
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
He Droppen an M -- Commey becomes Comey. nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
mind = blown n/t
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Now we're all Russians!
Please pass the caviar.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Followed by Chicken Kiev, please.
That'll be Chicken Donetsk to you! n/t
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
A rose by another name is still
a heart attack on a plate. But, such a yummy one!
Russians!! No, wait!! FBI!!
The list of Clinton enemies grows longer and longer while the reasoning deployed by Clintonistas grows weaker and weaker. You folks must be really worried that she's going to lose. You've gone beyond tinfoil hat territory into outright la-la land with nary a glance at the signpost up ahead for the Twilight Zone.
The Clintonistas are all zombies
Yup, seems that way, don't it?
One would think that Subir, of all people, would be able to see the strategy and deception behind this attack on the credibility of the FBI.
Subir is posting on a site where the vast majority of the community has walked away from Hillary Clinton---in spite of Bernie's endorsement---because they can't stop thinking about the real Hillary Clinton they've come to know, the one who lies behind the continuous stream of deception that she peddles.
To hear her attack any of the people who stand in her way is to invite us to reflect on her motivations behind the attack.
Her strategy is desperately intended to deflect attention away from the fact of the sins she is guilty of and try to focus it instead on the 'bad people' who are telling the world about her sins.
They are doing this, actually, to try to hold on to some of the weakest elements of her support, people who have accepted the MSM herd's perception that she is someone who is 'honest enough' to be trusted with the Presidency.
It is precisely the same strategy they used with some success when they created and pushed the "Bernie Bros" meme, which persuaded enough 'minimally informed' identity Democrats to perceived that Bernie's movement was something they really didn't want to identify with.
It's a very sophisticated strategy that is basically intended to give her supporters something to talk about that keeps them focused on 'the enemy' that is trying to deprive her of her hoped for achievement.
So sad to see Subir either 1) swallowing this deceptive ploy whole, or 2) understanding it for what it is, but still believing he should try to use it to persuade members of this community to 'come to Hillaryland.'
James Kroeger
i just find it remarkable that people who criticized
Comey and the FBI for deciding not to bring an indictment in July now want to pay them on the back for breaking their own rules and revealing details of an investigation in progress. And let's be clear, most of the FBI has NEVER been a friend of the left. And it has a long sordid history of messing in US politics. You may applaud them because you don't like Clinton. But what happens when they return their attention to activists on he left?
@subirgrewal
You should think about that line very carefully
Makes you wonder why they initially didn't indict clinton, doesn't it? I mean, if they've never been a friend of the left, surely they would have indicted and prosecuted a "left" candidate the moment an opportunity presented itself. Or are you admitting that the witch isn't left wing at all?
Please stop using logic- it hurts
Facts do not worry most people, so when you point out the truth and bring data to the discussion you will lose most people. However, great point and thank you for using reality in your feedback.
They didn't indict because they didn't have the
gumption to outright determine the outcome of an election like that, and there was enough wiggle room to do that (fuzzy state department rules, questions about classification, etc). But yeah, you can go ahead and believe this is a vast right wing conspiracy to fix the election for Clinton.
@subirgrewal
Ah, straw manning now
Great job Subir. Amazing how a clown has managed to get once respectable people to frothing at the mouth levels of hysterics.
Tell me, do you think that Senate Democrats will roll over and let Trump run the nation like an emperor?
BZZZZ! Dem talking points make me puke
". . . vast right wing conspiracy. . ."
So glad we don't parrot shit like this over here. We don't memorize phrases like actors, and when I see the talking points, I throw up in my mouth a little bit. I'm also reminded of what a confined space the Matrix/Borg actually is.
Gross.
To the point you tried to make LMFAO! You didn't say they didn't indict because they didn't have the necessary evidence, you said it was because they would have affected the election outcome. At least you understand she should have been indicted all along. Progress! Lol
Oh, and the FBI guy quoted in one of your blockquotes is dead on accurate: the Clintons ARE a crime family, and Killary IS a pathological liar.
People criticized Comey in July
because he said that anyone not named Clinton would have been indicted for the various machinations.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
What's more remarkable...
are the people who applauded Comey for his so-called professionalism in failing to refer charges are now screaming bloody murder because he finally decided to do his job.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Strawman?
I don't applaud the FBI any more than I applaud Donald Trump in particular or the Republican Party in general. I fully expect them all to demonize the left at any pretense.
But the fact that they are evil does not invalidate any of the facts that they are able to bring to light. They are evil, but I have learned over the past year that the Clinton political machine is equally evil, but with a special talent at deception and manipulation of well-intentioned leftists.
I really wish you'd wake up to the fact that everything Bernie was fighting for, all of the virtuous agenda he put before us, will suffer an extremely damaging blow if Hillary wins. Centrist control of the Dem Party will be magnified tremendously and Bernie will be further marginalized.
ONLY if Hillary loses next week will Bernie's revolution have a chance of reforming the Dem Party. As the Dem party leadership gazes at their navels in shocking defeat, Bernie will be able to tell them why they lost and he'll have their attention. If she wins...it's all over...
James Kroeger
There is an argument to be made that Dems have to lose
in a big way to pivot left. If you were making that argument with anyone except Trump running in opposition, I'd be inclined to pay some attention. With Trump looming, that theory will have to wait. Bernie's on the same page.
@subirgrewal
GOD DAMNIT, SUBIR,
That FUCKING EVIL SHITHEAD wants to START WORLD WAR FUCKING THREE and you want us to Vote For That?'!?!?
Not to mention all the not to mentionables inHOW WE GOT HERE?!?
DUDE! I love ya, I RESPECT ya, but gimme a fucking break here, will ya?
With the orange pukestain I figure 50/50 we get in a hot war with the ruskies.
With evil shithead(not worth capitalizing), I figure it's 90/10 hot war in 18 months.
WHAT FUCKING ODDS DO YOU THINK I'M GOING FOR?!?
No way do I vote op. But No Fucking Way do I vote evil shithead.
On a related note, my friend of 32years and wife of 19(the same) tells me this morning, and I quote,'I DONT WANT TO KNOW!' in reference to hers emails, the collusion, the outright theft and fraud, the lies, the manipulations, the pay to play at cgi, shit brother, YOU were pointing this out on lof during the primaries.
What happened since? And don't tell me dRumph. 'Cause if you're going lote voting, I'm Just slightly Less uncomfortable with pukestain when it comes to war.
And that's my one and only issue right now, No More War! And how about a heaping side dish of a LOT LESS FUCKING WAR than we have right now. Capice?
peace
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Sorry, I just don't believe that.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I do not like Clinton's foreign policy at all, but I don't believe she's itching to start WW-3 either. She is likely to want more intervention, which we should oppose, in the same way we opposed Iraq.
I have no confidence in anything Trump says or claims to want. He is a bully with a hair-trigger who likes to surround himself with sycophants, that kind of person can easily get themselves (and the country) into situations well over their heads. Quite apart from that, he has, on numerous occasions, insisted we should "bomb the shit out of them", "hit them hard" or some variation of that. We can't ignore those statements.
@subirgrewal
Intervention
let's see, Syria is practically a given, which of course is easy to escalate to WW3 (technically 4 to some, counting the Cold War and affiliated conflicts as 3), she's also likely to push by sabre-rattle at least in eastern Europe. She'll confront the Chinese in the S China sea and elsewhere,
The real prizes for these assholes though are in the 'stans. What I really fear, and which will certainly result in war with Russia if it's pursued, is US rat=f**king on Russia's borders. The Uzbek leader died recently, and Khazakstan's is old and frail. What I fear most is that the neocons will suddenly discover that these countries are long-lost best friends forever, and that they need "real" democracy in the form of NATO membership and western management of their energy resources.
NATO expansion is creeping and surrounding Russia. Instead of being a defensive pact, it's become an offensive strategy. Russia won't tolerate new hostile governments on it's southern border, and there is no good reason for us to poke that particular stick at them.
Except of course for the purpose of making certain well-connected insiders rich.
I'm not optimistic, I don't think she'll be able to resist playing with this tar-baby.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
It's my understanding that George HW Bush promised Russia
that NATO would not expand to Russia's border and that Bill Clinton reneged on the promise. If not so, I would like to know so I don't repeat something false.
I agree that NATO has lost whatever original reason it had for existing and now serves monopoly capital as an aggressive force.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
That’s exactly what *everyone* in former East Germany says.
And those who are old enough to remember would know. Of course they’re gonna know this, a lot better than Americans would.
During that period, you bet your a— they were following the news on U.S.-Soviet diplomacy every effin’ day — because that diplomacy was gonna decide (among a whole bunch of other things) whether East and West Germany were gonna be allowed to reunify or not.
"... oppose, in the same way we opposed Iraq."
Is that the best you have? Lots of dead people want to know.
stein - baraka
2016
Subir, I was looking for the article I read
the other day that said Clinton put a stop to negotiations w/Russia wherein Russia guaranteed Assad would step down.
Didn't find that particular article, but here is one serious must-read from a well-respected site: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-1-cli...
This article should replace some of your wishful thinking about Hillary's intentions with a few facts about what she has actually said and done.
Watch this video, Subir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0agBtEEYTaY
She's itching to start war with Iran and Russia. The nuclear option is on the table - her words. Are you okay with that?
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Might I suggest....
That you haven't really considered the possibility that this may be one of those moments in history when the stars are aligned in favor of the Left...if only we take advantage of it.
The thing is that the downside risks of a Trump Presidency are not all that bad when compared to the Republican-in-all-but-name Democrat, Hillary Clinton. She is so "centrist" that her positions on economic issues---as stated to her donors in private---are basically indistinguishable from the Standard Republican line. Her FP dispositions are actually hard Right---truly NeoCon in nature. The only areas in which she ranks favorably compared to Donald are areas in which we would be well prepared to defend the cause of Sanity from his essential sociopathy. (The Dems, the MSM, and anti-Donald Republicans can be counted on to join forces to defeat his agenda on the level of legislation.)
His negatives are already so high, and his racist blather so appalling, that with our constant legislative pressure, he's guaranteed to be a one-term President. We'll have him right where we want him to take on his racist appeals. In the mean time, Bernie will be able to expand his movement within the Dem party and we'll be able to make mid-term gains.
Bernie may be realizing this already, though he was pretty much committed to his "I'm part of the team" approach as the convention neared. If she loses, I can guarantee you that he'll be the first to admit that it was the best thing that could have happened to his dreams of a political revolution.
Please consider reviewing a more lengthy statement of these arguments here.
James Kroeger
I don't believe Congress will contain Trump
in fact, I think they will enable him. If he wins he'll have GOP majorities either immediately or in 2018. After the elections, the GOP will be googly-eyed over having power again and lawmakers will be rushing to Penn avenue to line up and kiss Trump's ring. They'll want to appeal to his voters and get bills passed and signed for their lobbyists and donors. They're not going to stand for principle. We can already see that. Trump moves up in the polls 1-2 percent and these guys suddenly forget all about the "honor" of their wives, daughters and mothers which they were harping on about just a couple of weeks ago. No, Congress will roll over for Donald Trump, and he will kick them into submission.
Dems will blame the left for everything Trump does, and a substantial swath of voters will buy that. In particular, they will blame Bernie. They'll blame him for every bad law, every unprosecuted police shooting, every stupid statement, every scandal, literally everything that happens in a Trump administration will be laid at Bernie's feet. And they will say, he's the reason we still haven't had a female president. They'll blame Bernie and his "BernieBros". The Democratic mass will be angry and lap it all up. When Trump passes all his business friendly laws that let frauds and con-men like him off the hook, they will say we were useful idiots who complained about 1% fraudsters but were so thick we got conned by one.
No, it would actually set our cause back, by a lot.
@subirgrewal
Same thing has been said about every election.
Then, we vote Democrat and get told the President isn't a dictator. In fact, he has barely any power at all. Blame Congress and the SCOTUS.
It's old and played out. Get Democrats to do their job in the House and Senate for a change. And you still haven't proven Hillary will be better than Trump. I don't think she will. Her record says she won't.
If Trump wins, he will have a senate/house majority
If not this year, then certainly in 2018. Republicans have all fallen in line, even supposed rock-ribbed conservative Ted Cruz. AFTER Trump insulted Cruz's wife, to his face. You think that cast of wet noodles is going to stand up to Trump after the election? That's pretty flimsy logic. If Trump gets elected, everyone in the Republican party will rush to "respect the will of the people". The SC will either be ignored or packed or end up with a conservative majority somewhat sympathetic to Trump.
@subirgrewal
You don't know what Senate or House Trump will have.
That is another played out tactic: Predicting stuff as though reciting fact because there's some reliable crystal ball somewhere. And, of course, predicting a worst case scenario scenario in the case of a Republican victory. However, even assuming Trump wins and does get a majority in both Houses, he won't have 60 Senators. So, as I already said, make Democrats in Congress do their job, especially Democratic Senators. And if they don't, blame it on them. A minority of Republicans in the Senate blocked everything Obama tried. It's called a filibuster and you don't even actually have to actually, you know, filibuster. There's even such a thing as one person hold.
You still don't get that waving Trump or any Republican around is not magical. At least not on this board. Been there, done that, so over it. Besides, I am even more afraid of the damage Hillary will do, no matter what House and Senate she has, than you are of Trump.
BTW, Garland is a conservative and a Republican has supposedly been on Obama's short list for 8 years, as has Cass Sunstein. The bogeymen New Democrats have been brandishing for thirty years don't work any more. New Democrats are going to have to actually produce good things if they want to keep votes. Bubba stunk--NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications Act, ending welfare "as we know it," prison for profit, and on and on -- and Hillary is ten times worse.
Cass Sunstein on the Supreme Court?
Oh. My. G~d.
People really don’t understand how hostile Democrats have become to civil liberties.
At this point, the kind of nominee I’d want for Supreme Court justice wouldn’t be one of the usual corrupt insiders — it would be an outsider with real principles, like Francis Boyle or Bruce Fein.
Hillary and company have a responsibilty here too!!!!
They hid the information. They hid it , they lied about it, and after each revelation, would lie again to fit the new information. They tried to run out the clock. Perjury is right there in their testimony. Comey was perfectly willing to give them all a mulligan.
This latest, and it is only the latest, revelation of their outright lying about the emails was a bridge too far. There was a overarching public interest in letting the public know, and a moral and likely legal basis for notifying congress, and the rank and file with the first hand knowledge of the sludge out of the Clinton cartel were going to leak everything anyway.
I am convinced Comey only sent his notice so as to still be in some control of the story and the investigation. Clinton should thank him.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to your view
that the Clinton apparatus skates close to the line very often. But secrecy has been a hallmark of many administrations. The Bush WH had an entirely separate network installed and all equipment destroyed when they left. The Obama administration has been downright merciless with whistleblowers. I think the e-mails are a really sorry place to hang your hat. YMMV, but I think HRC gets a lot of flak for things that people would let slide with a slicker, friendlier, back-slapping candidate.
@subirgrewal
"Bush did it so it's ok with me"
Jesus TAPDANCING CHRIST
Subir, cut the crap.
Just knock it off.
I spent 17 years as a federal employee. If I had done what we *know* Clinton did- set up a private, unauthorized email server with the specific intent of allowing government (read: WORK-RELATED) communications to pass through it such that I would not be subject to Federal electronic recordkeeping requirements, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL CONTENT, I would have been fired. Immediately. I would also have had no possible appeal to that termination, and would very very likely have been fined, probably arrested, and very possibly JAILED.
So stop insulting our intelligence by deflecting the question to the content. That's ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT.
I don't care if she was exchanging recipes. What she did should have ended her career and destroyed her chances of ever being elected, FULL STOP.
Everything else is window dressing and misdirection.
The more I read Subir, the more I start to wonder if he/she
really believes this nonsense and is trying to convince us and instead is trying to convince him/herself that they are making the right choice.
If that is the case Subir, then the answer is no.
Backing and electing Clinton will set back the cause of progressives at least as many decades as her husband did.
So please consider that.
Unless of course you are one of those people who could easily survive, or possibly even thrive under another 8 years of neo-liberal policies (Something I strongly suspect to be true, because absolutely nobody that is paying close attention to politics could possibly think that neo-liberal economic policies and trade deals are going to help the poor and disenfranchised in our nation.) and that is why you are so comfortable bending the truth till it screams to elect a criminal.
If the latter is your motivation then you disgust me.
If the former? Well, I pity you, but will retain hope that you will indeed wake up to the fact that you have been brainwashed by dissembling and fear.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Subir's cool
No need to call him out. The election will be over in a few days time anyhow, and then the real fun begins, whichever way it goes. Yikes.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
A bit of overstatement there.
subir wrote "pay [sic] them on the back for breaking their own rules and revealing details of an investigation in progress".
First, the rule is to not intentionally do anything for partisan political purposes that would disrupt an election. There is no proof whatsoever that Comey intended to do that or that there was any partisan political purpose in what he did.
[Side note: Isn't it ironic that Comey created an intention exception to get Clinton off the hook for her email crimes where none existed yet he's now being accused of intentional disruption of her coronation.]
Second, Comey did not reveal details of an investigation in progress. The bulk of the hue and cry against him is that he didn't supply enough detail. His letter was short and sweet: We discovered emails in a previously unknown location and we're gonna look at them. He cast no aspersion and made no claims.
Hillary is a Corporate Centrist with Massive Establishment
support.
I wasn't pissed when Comey gave her important person treatment in July. I just saw it as par for the course. I expected it. She's a corporate centrist with massive Establishment support running against a wildcard who's only benefit is that he will give Government a black eye.
The shit in the emails, also not surprising, other than the fact that there's proof that important people can say and do what they want regarding American elections. I also expected avoidance by the FBI because this dirty laundry politicking casts too wide a net. It's like showing the public their achilles heel.
Hillary got the treatment and support I expected in July.
I am a bit surprised about this recent thing though. The reason for my surprise is that they went after a corporate centrist creature of the Establishment.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
You don't get it, do you?
Whatever brings her loathesome influence and corruption to an end is the desired outcome. My enemy of my enemy is my friend. We can pick up the pieces later once she's gone. Forever.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I do get "it", I don't agree.
@subirgrewal
My condolences.
I'd actually understand you better if you didn't believe Hillary is on our side, and you were just trying to manipulate us here instead.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Hillary is on my side, definitely when it comes
to civil rights and issues surrounding equality and justice. She is not on my side when it comes to foreign policy and economics.
Trump is not on my side at all. Yes, I'm happy to vote for the lesser evil, because I'd like less evil, not more.
@subirgrewal
Definitely?
Why not judge her on her actions and not her words? Here's one example: Honduras. She supported a coup against a left leaning, democratically elected president - even after civil war ensued and parents, so terrified for their children they were willing to let them walk to the US.
"We had to send a message to families..." she said when she sent those children back to almost certain death.
There are many examples, but bone up on Honduras and Clinton's relationship to that nation and tell me these demonstrate her conviction on civil rights, equality and justice. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds
If you'd like a nearer example, listen to her word salad about supporting the business rather than the Native American heroes on the pipeline being run under sacred ground, stolen by eminent domain. (Her biggest supporters bankrolled the project.)
The Party platform speaks highly of the Native peoples.
Hasn't helped DAPL protestors much so far. They are getting hurt and need help.
Could someone please hold the Queen's FTTF pronto? thx.
FYI: Stein and Baraka have been there in support of the protestors. Clinton campaign finally released a "statement" this week which said ---- nothing.
stein - baraka
2016
You seem to be a glutton
For punishment. Why is that exactly? Don't you have better things to do with your time these days then troll this place? Like making calls for your corrupt candidate and getting other useful idiots to vote for her?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I call bs. First, please cite the rule that was broken.
A practice, custom or tradition is not the same as rule.
Second, please cite anything at all that says the FBI should not inform Congress when an investigation has been re-opened because of additional evidence.
Third, please provide links to all the objections from Hill fans to any of the unprecedented and very troubling things listed in this thread. http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-unprecedented-and-its-deeply-trou...
Please devote particular attention to the bits in that thread about Lynch and Bubba meeting on the tarmac, in violation of many ethical rules to which attorneys are subject, followed by Lynch recusing not only herself, but her entire department and dumping sole responsibility on the FBI, which she has no statutory authority to do.
Fourth, please cite all the objections from Hill fans when Comey varied from not only rules, but from the federal system of Justice in several ways he cited right in his July speech. Sure, he rationalized some of the deviations, but we can safely ignore bloviating about the public interest. Nothing that happened was truly in the public interest, starting with the restrictions put on the FBI's investigation. Also, please tell me--and with a straight face, please--how Hill fans would have reacted to Comey's statements and all the excuses made for her and her lawyers had the person under investigation been Obama or Sanders during the 2008 or 2015 primaries. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-direct...
Fifth, Hill fans also seem to have had zero problem with the fact that special prosecutor should have been appointed at the outset, but wasn't. And, if not at the outset, certainly once Lynch recused the D of J from performing its job. If you disagree, please explain how (1) the head of the Executive Branch, who oversees both the D of J and the FBI, who was also (2) the head of the Democratic Party, with Hillary as its anointee, and also (3) the person who nominated Clinton as his SOS; and also (4) the person who had lied on TV about learning about her servers with the rest of America; and (5) also the person who believes that Hillary as President is necessary for his own legacy; had no inherent conflict of interest. Then explain how Lynch had none. Then explain where Lynch got the authority to recuse the entire D of J from its responsibilities in this case. And without appointment of a special prosecutor to boot.
I don't think anyone can do that credibly and honorably.
Please, vacate the high road of no double standards.
I'm doing gotv, so don't have time.
But, "Clinton campaign says Comey letter violates Justice Department protocols", mostly true by politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/30/robby-moo...
@subirgrewal
Total bs. First, Politifact itself often bs's
and Politifact's bs often favors Hillary, as in this instance.
For example unrelated to Comey, during a debate, Hillary claimed Trump says "rigged" about everything. As as an example, she claimed (falsely) that Trump had said the Emmys were rigged because he did not win one. Note: "rigged" is the key word, false claims of rigging was her point and Trump's claims that elections might be "rigged" was what she was addressed. In fact, Trump had said the Emmy's had applied the wrong standard, which is a very different statement with a very different connotation than "riggging." Using the wrong standard, if true, could be an honest mistake; rigging cannot. Nonetheless, Politifact falsely rated Hillary's nonsense either true or mostly true--I've forgotten which.
The bs politifact used this time to vindicate the Clinton campaign was taking a rule against taking an action done for the purpose of "interfering with elections" and claiming Comey had violated it without giving a lick of proof as to what his purpose was and zero evidence showing that politics or the election had played any role at all in his decision to reopen the investigation or any statement he made about re-opening it.
As with the rigging example, where politifact could "prove" Hillary true or mostly true only if it ignored that "rigging" was THE key element, here, it can "show" Mook was correct only if it ignores that Comey's purpose is the key element.
Ironically, politifact (and Mook) does this clumsy hatchet job on a man who said there was no evidence Hillary had intended to violate the law or to conceal anything, when she clearly intended both, and recommended against taking action against her while saying anyone else would have been sanctioned.
Btw, using "for the purpose of interfering with elections" the same evidence-free, analysis-free way that polifact throws it around, why wouldn't keeping that info secret also be "for the purpose of interfering with an election?"
Politifact also compounds the bs by quoting people who say Comey was wrong or question but give zero proof that he did anything for the purpose of interfering with an election. Most Supreme Court decisions that are least bit controversial have been 5-4, so don't tell me this is so clear cut politifact could not have found anyone to speak on behalf of Comey and don't tell me I am the only person in the US who can read that rule with comprehension.
All this rule basically prohibits is doing something for the purpose of interfering with an election. For example, it does not even prohibit action that will in fact influence an election, so long as the prohibited purpose is not present. If there is no proof of Comey's purpose, then there is also no evidence that Comey broke this rule. In fact, there is no evidence that he would not have been failing to do his job if he had tried to keep this a secret (assuming he even could have kept it a secret, with so many FBI agents resigning over this). So, again, I ask you, please cite the rule that Comey supposedly broke.
As an aside, candidly, I don't rate posters who ignore everything in a post except the point(s) they think they can refute very high on good faith discussion and consider responding thoughtfully to such posters a colossal waste of time, unless I just don't want to leave their bs on the board unrefuted for others to read. Yeah, I know, you had no time. However, there was no deadline at all on replying and you did find enough time to come up with the politifact link. Maybe you should have held your reply until you did have time to address all my points or not replied at all. As it is, this politifact 'vindication" is total bs anyway.
Hillary breaks the rules ALL OF THE TIME. Do you care? No.
You don't even care about rules to keep America safe. She could leave top secret documents at Starbucks, and Clinton supporters would not care one little iota. So don't preach to us about rules.
BTW, what is the precious precious rule that you care about so much, that is more important than keeping classified information safe?
~OaWN
Zero evidence that Comey broke any rule, anyway.
Anonymous sources? Daily Beast?
After a steady diet of Clintonian misdirection, McCarthyite tactics, outright lies and "I know you are but what am I?" I would have thought someone as intelligent as subir would be able to see through such transparent propaganda. I can believe a lot of FBI agents were very upset with the original decision not to pursue charges against Clinton or her minions, but a lot of other people were too. And we aren't all right-wing trolls, dammit.
TOP is so far gone in their propaganda bubble they have no room for anything else. That's why most of us don't go over there anymore. They will buy this nonsense, but please don't come peddle it over here. The Clintons have a famous reverse Midas touch: everything they touch turns to shit. Even Bernie Sanders' reputation.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I firmly believe it is a mistake to attribute certain kinds of
things to lack of intelligence or fear. I see it all the time about Democrats in Congress "not getting it" or "being too chicken." The House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus are neither of those things. And if they were too stupid, they have staffs and attorneys (at our expense, of course) to inform and advise them. As for being chicken, please.
In reality, sometimes people hit exactly what they aimed at, but just don't want the world to know what they really aimed at. And, when it comes to Democrats, that seems to happen a lot.
One minute posters are saying , sure they hate her as much as anyone else does, but, gee, the FBI exonerated her. And, btw, liberals really need to STFU with their conspiracy theories because they sound crazy. The next minute...well, you get the idea.
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
--Imagine how far ahead Bernie would be in the polls about now. Good read: What does it take to bring Hillary Clinton to justice? - Pepe Escobar
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Great article zim. People please read it.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
You know, I try to keep up and I do pretty well.
But there are so many outrageous revelations, a person is bound to miss one. I did. Thank you for the link. Without this link, I would not have known that Mr. Kadzik, who was the attorney who helped secure Marc Rich's pardon, is now in the DOJ and in charge of the case involving the 650,000 "new" emails. And that he kept Podesta out of jail:
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Thanks for this post. I'm bookmarking. Crikey! And they
claim Comey is the one acting improperly now (but not in July).
Where the flock is a firing squad when you really need one?
Now I'm starting to wonder subir...
so I'm going to ask you straight out.
Are you employed by Correct the Record and/or paid by or affiliated within an official capacity with the Hillary Clinton campaign?
We do allow varying opinions here, but disallow paid shills or operatives.
Too much work for too little effect to be CTR
It is not like we are a large target audience here.
More bang for buck on FB, Reddit and Twitter.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Still like to see his answer...
or lack of for that matter, just for the record.
I think he just likes a rousing discussion, but I could be wrong
Last time out, we gave him about 400 comments to TOP's paltry 95 or so. And we have what, 1/1000th of their membership? Shows you the difference between an issues site and an echo chamber.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
The paranoid conspiracy theories floating around here are
something you really need to get under control.
Somehow, your propensity to paint anyone with a view that doesn't align with "Hillary evil, must destroy" as a paid shill leads me to doubt you will.
And no, I don't work for or get paid by any campaign.
@subirgrewal
Fair enough...
thank you.
No, I'm not interested in "controlling" the members and their thought processes here, including yourself.
Let me ask you, if a writer would go to a pro-Hillary Clinton site and post diary after diary promoting Donald Trump, stirring the pot if you will, would it not be fair to ask if they are a paid shill? Would that poster not be summarily banned at most sites?
You were asked a simple and straight forward question, a fair question in my view. I thank you for answering.
I almost never engage in non-substantive discussions
If you've got an argument that I find interesting, I'm happy to discuss. I find no value in engaging in non-substantive discussions and name-calling because it quickly leads downhill and online disembodied discussions online already have a high right of devolving into pie-fights.
I made an exception here because so many people seem to ascribe magical qualities to my refusal to engage in threads that start out calling me a shill, or a paid troll or whatever. I have a limited amount of time, and I never enjoyed heckling much.
@subirgrewal
Aargh, too many mis-edits, but you get the point.
@subirgrewal
I, too, almost never engage in non-substantive discussions,
unless I'm joking or defending myself against an unprovoked personal attack. That said, I make occasional exceptions. Foollish consistency and all that.
The board owner asked you a simple question based on your behavior. It was obviously board administration, not name calling or insanity. Your replies were insulting and imperious. If I were in his shoes, you would not have been able to reply the second time, but he's remained patient.
Whatever dude.
@subirgrewal
with this attitude you show you're wasting your own time
Dude.
Do you have a strategy in mind with these posts? A goal? Just curious.
Whatever dude? How dare you!
You've been tolerated here despite your non-stop nagging. JtC asked you how long you would live promoting Donald Trump at a Hillary site like DailyKos, and you dodge the question. As one of the moderators here, I'm all for banning your ass for pestering the site, disrespecting admin, and being flippant with people who have no reason to put up with your Clinton fantasies.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You might want to follow up your question.
Is CTR the Clinton campaign? By law, it is not the same thing.
So a person on the CTR payroll is not being paid by any political campaign. Oh no, surely not!
D. Brazille told Megyn Kelly adamantly and repeatedly that she had not gotten a town hall question from CNN.
It came from TV1, so the "Christian woman" was not lying.
Makes me want to holler, throw up both my hands."- m. gaye
stein - baraka
2016
Pages