You realize that a lot of reasonable people can dislike criminals breaking the law without being a Trumpkin?

Also... What's this? ____ism or ____phobia from anonymous internet trolls? No way!!!

11/1/2016 4:06:51 PM

Quote :

" Its basically becoming the "safe space" of the internet."

11/1/2016 4:19:17 PM

that is one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while

11/1/2016 4:46:22 PM

Next time I feel personally victimized, the first place I'll go to is Twitter to share my plight and pain given how safe and supportive a community it is.

11/1/2016 4:54:41 PM

Quote :

"Twitter's censorship activities is pretty well documented. And this is not just censorship of non-liberal posting. Lets not pretend Twitter is a bastion of free thought. Its basically becoming the "safe space" of the internet."

watching twitter lose it's shit over the #StopIslam trend was hilarious. Their claims of not censoring postings went out the window forever that day.

11/1/2016 5:44:06 PM

I don't think Twitter has ever claimed they never censored posts. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have a TOS that people are supposed to agree to when they register and therefore they can ban or delete users. I'm not on Twitter though, so what do I know?

11/1/2016 5:48:52 PM

The most egregious "Safe Space" I've ever seen on the internet is r/The_Donald

11/1/2016 7:05:25 PM

Can we take a second and admire the fact that the the NYT article about the FBI cited a source saying the Clinton Foundation investigation was based on the book Clinton Cash?

If the left wants to survive they better hire some better conspiracists to write books.

[Edited on November 2, 2016 at 7:39 AM. Reason : It's almost like midterm votes matter. The GOP basically has carte Blanche to be idiots ]

11/2/2016 7:38:30 AM

Link to the Clinton cash thing?

11/2/2016 7:55:42 AM

Quote :

"In August, around the same time the decision was made to keep the Manafort investigation at a low simmer, the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which, like the Manafort matter, was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case. The book asserted that foreign entities gave money to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and in return received favors from the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton has adamantly denied those claims."

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/fbi-james-comey-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.amp.html?client=safari

11/2/2016 8:02:43 AM

Jeebus

I was getting my NYT articles crossed, I was thinking of the recent one that dismissed the Trump/Putin connections. The timing and content of that one is making me wonder if there isn't something screwey going on with the NYT's "law enforcement official" source. It clearly could be several people but they must work at the FBI. And this FBI source has now leaked both anti-Hillary info and pro-trump info. Is Comey investigating where this leak is coming from? If not, does that mean he is giving tacit approval?

11/2/2016 8:33:51 AM

WSJ also posted the same thing. Investigation was started based off Clinton Cash.

I guess we all had too much faith that the FBI actually knows what they are doing.

The WSJ article is interesting actually. Shows a real disconnect between agents and DOJ.

(It's behind a paywall but you can find it easy enough)

11/2/2016 9:46:06 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304105-report-indictment-likely-in-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2016 11:52:39 PM

LOL @ that source.

11/3/2016 2:18:53 AM

It may or may not be true but holy shit the FBI is a sieve right now. This is fucking pathetic no matter who you support.

Also I saw the five foreign hackers thing reported by a fake CNN twitter before that article. It wouldn't be the first time (today) that FNC fell for a fake story.

11/3/2016 6:20:00 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-fanboy.html

FBI stuff continues to get shadier.

11/3/2016 9:09:43 AM

Bret Baier is definitely on the news side over there so it does mean more coming from him than Hannity or Dobbs for sure...

If you want to play the conspiracy game on the other side the most damning leaks seem to be all going to Murdoch owned ventures (FNC, WSJ and NYP).

^ meh, I'm sure agents who put work in on these investigations have a degree of disappointment when they disagree with the heads of the FBI or DOJ but as far this story goes... I'll file it away with most of these anonymous leaks as likely BS and innuendo

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 9:35 AM. Reason : X]

11/3/2016 9:19:57 AM

File the content of the leaks away as BS or file away the fact that info is being leaked from the FBI directly to Trump campaign surrogates?

The latter is pretty troubling. No matter if the contents are 100% false or true or somewhere in between, it's pretty clear someone or a group in the FBI is attempting to influence the election. Why would they continue to leak after they just saw the shitstorm that came down on Comey. All of the info leaked since the Comey letter has been either pro-Trump or anti-Clinton news. And now we have some evidence that Trump campaign surrogates may have had access and friendly relationships with the FBI office responsible for the leaks.

11/3/2016 11:56:00 AM

Chelsea Clinton is on the board at the Daily Beast. Fyi.

I think it's clear what is happening. Agents had a case, higher ups/DOJ covered it up. Agents revolted.

11/3/2016 11:59:07 AM

Agents are clearly unhappy about how the higher ups and DOJ handled it. That much is plainly obvious.

It wouldn't be the first time that field agents thought they had a case and others didn't. Even the WSJ article did say there was scant evidence on top of the Clinton Cash book.

What I did find interesting is that McCabe was pissed that the DOJ didn't want to pursue. Guess they should have given him more money.

11/3/2016 12:12:10 PM

I'd be pissed if I didn't get any hush money too.

11/3/2016 12:13:25 PM

Alternative explanation: some non-zero percentage of the NY FBI office are middle-aged white men that lean Trump, listen to Rush, and read "Clinton Cash" 3 times and occasionally hang with Giuliani and other Trump surrogates. They are convinced the Clintons are corrupt, and every empty lead just convinces them the cover-up is even more epic. Higher ups ask for evidence and all they can produce are a fictitious book and hearsay from some criminal unrelated to the case, so no charges can be pursued. This makes them double down on Trump love because, again, the Clintons are corrupt. They see Trump floundering and begin leaking complete bullshit in an effort to influence the election.

11/3/2016 12:14:26 PM

That's as big a leap as the other side takes. The reality is probably less sinister. Agents bust ass trying to find evidence for case. Evidence they feel is strong is sent to higher-ups. Higher-ups decide it isn't strong enough. Agents get pissed and leak.

11/3/2016 12:16:37 PM

Quote :

"Agents are clearly unhappy about how the higher ups and DOJ handled it"

but...the DOJ didn't handle it. they let the FBI take the whole shebang after the airplane meeting bullshit. normally the FBI would have turned over findings to DOJ and DOJ makes decision. But Comey made the decision.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 12:18:16 PM

^^^
Could be. But we know that the DOJ was purposely obstructing. Why? Why not let the case speak for itself?

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 12:19:05 PM

Do you people even know what the relevant laws are related to classified information? The only people to ever be charged with crimes actually took classified information that originated from an SCI access control system and took it somewhere else. For example, David Petraeus, took information he received during a high level briefing in a SCIF and handed it to a reporter who was his mistress. That was waaaaaaaay worse than anything Hillary did, and only resulted in a misdemeanor charge.

Every single piece of "classified" information found on Hillary's email server originated from an unclassified State Department source, not an SCI access control system. They were only retroactively marked classified during the course of the FBI's investigation into the server. There is no case there and never will be. Furthermore, the only thing you really need to know about any Clinton investigation initiated by congressional Republicans is this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jIJ0g8EPs0

11/3/2016 12:26:30 PM

What did the DOJ obstruct?


^^^^Id actually be inclined to think that way too IF all of this didn't go down right before the election. The FBI agents have had months to be angry and leak stuff to make their superiors look bad. Instead they wait until 10 days out from the election? On top of that we just saw the shitstorm about "policies and precedents" and the hatch act, and how Comey is discrediting the investigation etc etc etc just two days before the leaks started. If these agents were intent on building a legitimate case against Clinton they would have kept their mouths shut and dig up some real evidence. Its also not just Clinton investigation leaks, They've also leaked that the Trump/Russia links are meaningless within hours of bombshell articles on that exact subject being published. That's too much evidence of intent for me.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 12:33 PM. Reason : the leakers had to know their leaks would be viewed as partisan, because it happened to Comey]

11/3/2016 12:31:02 PM

http://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-recordings-fueled-fbi-feud-in-clinton-probe-1478135518

You could interpret it in other ways, I'm sure, but combined with the Lynch meeting and DoJ officials leaking info to the Clinton campaign...


[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM. Reason : Sorry you'll need to search for the article on google to get past the paywall]

11/3/2016 12:36:28 PM

i'm shocked that people who would use fucking Clinton Cash as the basis for opening an investigation are pissed they didn't get to crucify her. i guess making steve bannon a special agent would have been a little too on the nose.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 1:00:43 PM

I mean it was all compiled for them. It's not an unreasonable place to start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clintons-citizens-united-and-21st-century-corruption/2015/05/08/7f11a0d6-f57b-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html

11/3/2016 1:03:08 PM

sure. and next the FBI should use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to investigate the jews

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 1:14:25 PM

^^i recognize the Quid pro quo arguments and have made them on this board before.

The problem is Clinton Cash is objectively riddled with errors and Schweizer is a known serial liar and GOP operative. To top it off the book was financed by Brietbart (who also gave away free copies on their website) and published by Murdoch owned HarperCollins. Do you think there's a chance that some of the arguments are just partisan in nature?

11/3/2016 1:21:15 PM

Have you read it? I haven't, but Lessig seems to think it's proof enough.

11/3/2016 1:34:10 PM

Using a book as the basis for an FBI investigation seems a bit silly to me. I can't accept that they are taking that book at face value. I have to think that they have some other concrete evidence that maybe supports the book.

11/3/2016 1:50:01 PM

^^i wouldn't waste my time like that

I think Lessig is seizing the moment to discuss the optics of corruption, point out hypocrisy in the parties, and start a discussion on the kind of rules we need in place to curb this kind of thing. I actually do think that there could be some substance, at a minimum just horrible optics, to the Clinton Foundation, but I'm not gonna hold Hillary to a higher standard than what basically every other congressperson is participating in on a daily basis.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 1:56 PM. Reason : I also won't tolerate an intelligence agency trying to influence an election using unfounded BS]

11/3/2016 1:55:20 PM

Where are you hearing the book is influencing the investigation?

From what I had read it was because of two unrelated cases where people being investigated were secretly recorded and the agents thought they could make a case.

11/3/2016 2:00:54 PM

^^
Honestly, I'm trying not to get too wrapped up in any theory right now. This close to election day everyone has an agenda. There is probably truth on both sides.

11/3/2016 2:09:33 PM

Quote :

"In August, around the same time the decision was made to keep the Manafort investigation at a low simmer, the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which, like the Manafort matter, was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/fbi-james-comey-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

"The FBI is Trumpland"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 2:21:42 PM

One FBI agent allegedly says ___? Solid tabloid journalism.

I wonder why the FBI doesn't like a corrupt person breaking the law?

11/3/2016 2:33:51 PM

Literally every story since Comey wrote that letter has been like that.

11/3/2016 2:35:13 PM

^^did you even read it? can you fucking read?

Quote :

"At the same time, other sources dispute the depth of support for Trump within the bureau, though they uniformly stated that Clinton is viewed highly unfavorably."

Quote :

"Sources who disputed the depth of Trump’s internal support agreed that the FBI is now in parlous political territory"

Quote :

"Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record"

multiple sources

and you have the temerity to talk about fucking echo chambers

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 2:47:34 PM

And how many sources for the clickbait headline?

Can you count?

11/3/2016 2:59:41 PM

Hmmmm - multiple sources within a law enforcement agency view a criminal unfavorably. Shocking.

11/3/2016 3:01:43 PM

Pro law and order? More like Trumpkins.

Hey guiz, Federal Bureau of Investigation? More like Federal Bureau of KKK Trump supporters.

11/3/2016 3:03:45 PM

but she isn't a criminal, though

11/3/2016 3:04:35 PM

Deleting evidence under subpoena isn't a crime? Lying to the FBI isn't? Interesting.

11/3/2016 3:06:13 PM

Is fraud? Is child rape?

I mean if we want to consider any current investigation or court hearings as proof of crime we can go down that road.

So three of the four candidates are criminals. Vote Johnson!

11/3/2016 3:07:31 PM

What worries me almost as much as the racist Trump supporters are the blind Hillary supporters. Or, maybe not so much as blind as apathetic toward her corrupt interests, some of which should be considered criminal.

For people like goodlife, goalilax, and shrike...serious question, do you honestly believe she's innocent in all of the mess that has come out recently about her? Do you not think she's surrounded herself with people like Podesta so there's always some level of plausible deniability? Do you honestly believe she isn't the corrupt politician that it sounds like she is?

Trump? We know his faults - and there are many: sexist, racist, egomaniacal, the list goes on. But I just can't believe that you guys sit here and act like there's nothing wrong with her.

If it were me, you'd call me a hack.

11/3/2016 3:10:41 PM

There are unfortunately people who can't see her obvious flaws. Just like there are those who think the only Trump flaw is "fucking bimbos." These people are either willfully misleading or idiots.

The truth is I don't love her but I'd vote for her if she resided from jail before I would vote for Trump. If there was a regular Republican running and I was sure the Senate would flip I likely wouldn't have voted for her this cycle.

11/3/2016 3:16:28 PM

Quote :

"Do you honestly believe she isn't the corrupt politician that it sounds like she is?"

oh man you almost made it through that post without fucking up.

does clinton have flaws? is she human? she shouldn't have used the private server, but if you expect me to get my dander up over that like I do about trump's sexual assault, embracing of white nationalism, tax evasion, and a plethora of other shit, you need to get the fuck on outta here.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:19:11 PM