Discussion:
Trump fires FBI Director James Comey
Add Reply
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-05-09 22:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency by
his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through the
halls of The Whining Donald's administration!

Fun, fun, fun !!!

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James
Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust and
confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following several
tumultuous months.

"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected institutions,
and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,"
Trump said in a statement.

The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.

The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last week.
Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, had
sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's laptop, including
some with classified information.

On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on the
laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up from
electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop containing
classified information were not the result of forwarding, the FBI said.

/snip - read the cited linked article/
islander
2017-05-09 23:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!

It is going to get crowded under that bus.
Gary
2017-05-09 23:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.

My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-05-10 04:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 09 May 2017 19:43:31 -0400, Gary <***@ubn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Gary
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
Most of the people Trump has swindled into
bankruptcy had a lot fewer assets than Comey.
Gary
2017-05-10 12:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by Gary
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
Most of the people Trump has swindled into
bankruptcy had a lot fewer assets than Comey.
When you're hustling on the same level that Trump was -- (building skyscrapers
in NYC) -- everybody is rich.
El Castor
2017-05-10 05:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
I'm grateful too, but in all honesty Comey seems to have been way out
of line. Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy. (-8
mg
2017-05-10 06:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 09 May 2017 22:37:24 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
I'm grateful too, but in all honesty Comey seems to have been way out
of line. Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy. (-8
Because the FBI is under the Justice department, that makes
the infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch,
on an airplane in Arizona, all the more suspicious and it
makes you wonder exactly what was going on during the
Hillary Clinton scandal days between Obama, Lynch, and
Comey.

In any case, here's the information that you were probably
referring to:

-------------

"President Donald Trump has fired FBI director James Comey,
the White House said Tuesday.

In his letter to Comey informing him of his decision, Trump
cited two letters from the Justice Department: one written
by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the other a memo from
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/read-justice-department-recommendations-that-trump-fire-comey/peH4WLlpT1zEo3R00wXBZO/
islander
2017-05-10 13:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
I'm grateful too, but in all honesty Comey seems to have been way out
of line. Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy. (-8
The FBI Director position is given a 10 year term as a way of isolating
them from political influence. That was put in place in response to
Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. The question is, why was Comey fired
now? The behavior that was used to justify the firing occurred almost a
year ago. Were the Senate hearings getting too close to the truth?

Personally, I don't trust Comey but I worry about who might replace him.
Isn't Christi looking for a job? How about Giuliani? Convicted felon
Bernard Kerik?

I think that the expression, "Be careful what you wish for" might be
appropriate!
Gary
2017-05-10 14:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
I was surprised and very disappointed in Trump for firing Comey. Were it not
for Comey -- Trump would not be in the White House today. And I am very
grateful to the Director for keeping Hillary out of that office.
My liking of Trump has dropped a good deal. Apparently loyalty to those who
help him -- is not one of his virtues.
I'm grateful too, but in all honesty Comey seems to have been way out
of line. Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy. (-8
The FBI Director position is given a 10 year term as a way of isolating
them from political influence. That was put in place in response to
Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. The question is, why was Comey fired
now? The behavior that was used to justify the firing occurred almost a
year ago. Were the Senate hearings getting too close to the truth?
I think it was Comey's treatment of Hillary that got him fired. Sure it got
Trump the presidency. But now he has to get things through Congress and he
needs Democrat help. "So long, Comey !"
Post by islander
Personally, I don't trust Comey but I worry about who might replace him.
Isn't Christi looking for a job? How about Giuliani? Convicted felon
Bernard Kerik?
David Duke would be a good one. He's probably done a lot of undercover
investigative work.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-10 18:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
El Castor
2017-05-10 20:17:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-10 20:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
El Castor
2017-05-10 20:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-10 20:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
Emily
2017-05-10 21:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
Why Hillary's e-mail server, of course.
b***@gmail.com
2017-05-10 22:02:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Why Hillary's e-mail server, of course.
<grin>

Perhaps there could be an ex post facto investigation of her fall
and the effect that had on her server also. There is just no end to
the things the Republicans could come up with to investigate. They
can't govern so they must be paid to do something. Maybe even "get out
of the way".
El Castor
2017-05-11 06:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.

None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 14:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.

I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-11 16:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 17:35:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-11 19:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-11 22:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-12 04:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-12 15:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.

As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven. Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-12 18:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-12 19:05:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-13 09:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-13 19:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-14 01:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?

Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
islander
2017-05-14 15:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.

Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Not gonna happen, not even with
the Republicans controlling Congress and SCOTUS. I won't claim that the
Republicans control Trump. That would be just plain silly!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-14 18:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
islander
2017-05-15 14:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
El Castor
2017-05-15 18:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
islander
2017-05-16 15:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something. That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-16 17:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-16 19:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-16 21:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-16 21:47:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-17 07:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-17 14:08:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-17 15:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-17 18:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
billbowden
2017-05-17 19:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
How about the fact donations to the Clinton foundation have dried up? Is
that evidence of pay-for-play?

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-global-initiative-closing/

“As soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed
toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began
pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was
predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic
work.”
Gary
2017-05-17 20:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:58:33 -0700, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
How about the fact donations to the Clinton foundation have dried up? Is
that evidence of pay-for-play?
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-global-initiative-closing/
“As soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed
toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began
pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was
predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic
work.”
I don't think making donations prove a foreign government had access to Clinton.
It might show that they "hoped" to have access and "hoped" the donation might
help.
islander
2017-05-18 01:03:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by billbowden
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
How about the fact donations to the Clinton foundation have dried up? Is
that evidence of pay-for-play?
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-global-initiative-closing/
“As soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed
toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began
pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was
predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic
work.”
You are watching too much Fox News. The Clinton Global Initiative is
indeed shutting down and that is not new. That was planned before the
election and the process takes time so that commitments that they have
made can be brought to a successful conclusion. By contrast, the
Clinton Foundation is still in operation and there is no indication that
it is downsizing or planning to shut down. If there is a fall-off of
donations, it is the result of what was a mud slinging campaign in which
financial benefit to the Clintons was never proven (or even seriously
pursued). It remains a model for efficient charity administration and
is highly rated by all the charity rating agencies.

As to evidence of pay-to-play, there is none and never was any.
El Castor
2017-05-18 07:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by billbowden
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
How about the fact donations to the Clinton foundation have dried up? Is
that evidence of pay-for-play?
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-global-initiative-closing/
“As soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed
toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began
pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was
predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic
work.”
You are watching too much Fox News. The Clinton Global Initiative is
indeed shutting down and that is not new. That was planned before the
election and the process takes time so that commitments that they have
made can be brought to a successful conclusion. By contrast, the
Clinton Foundation is still in operation and there is no indication that
it is downsizing or planning to shut down. If there is a fall-off of
donations, it is the result of what was a mud slinging campaign in which
financial benefit to the Clintons was never proven (or even seriously
pursued). It remains a model for efficient charity administration and
is highly rated by all the charity rating agencies.
As to evidence of pay-to-play, there is none and never was any.
Oh really?

"WikiLeaks: Clintons Sell Political Favors to Clinton Foundation
Donors"
http://observer.com/2016/11/wikileaks-clintons-sell-political-favors-to-clinton-foundation-donors/

"Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her
close aides at State Dept."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

"6 People/Countries That Bought Favors From Hillary Clinton"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8270/6-peoplecountries-bought-favors-hillary-clinton-ben-shapiro

"A newly released trove of emails from Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma
Abedin shows she repeatedly did favors for high-dollar contributors to
the Clinton Foundation — including a foreign national with a criminal
record that made her nervous."
https://nypost.com/2016/08/22/feds-find-thousands-more-clinton-emails/
El Castor
2017-05-18 08:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
In either case, an impartial decision, up or down, by a special
prosecutor. Would you agree?
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-18 15:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
In either case, an impartial decision, up or down, by a special
prosecutor. Would you agree?
Prosecutors do not decide guilt. They prosecute and a court decides
guilt (except in the case of a President where an impeachment is needed).

But, the prosecutors do not get to do their job without being given
evidence by investigators, in this case, the FBI.

The appointment of Robert Mueller to lead the investigation of the
possible collusion between the Trump organization and the Russians is a
good thing, don't you agree?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-18 18:21:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
In either case, an impartial decision, up or down, by a special
prosecutor. Would you agree?
Prosecutors do not decide guilt. They prosecute and a court decides
guilt (except in the case of a President where an impeachment is needed).
But, the prosecutors do not get to do their job without being given
evidence by investigators, in this case, the FBI.
The appointment of Robert Mueller to lead the investigation of the
possible collusion between the Trump organization and the Russians is a
good thing, don't you agree?
If it will get the Left to shut up, then absolutely I agree, but if
Mueller fails to find reason for impeachment, the Left will scream,
shout, and run about -- claiming the investigation was rigged. Don't
you agree?
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
islander
2017-05-19 00:21:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens.
Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose
Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who
will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election,
yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
There is no evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton's server. The
documents that were released by Wikileaks were obtained from a FOYA
request to the State Department.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
You are correct. It appears that the Russian government hacked the DNC
and Podesta, not Clinton.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is not unreasonable to assume that
the Russians would use the Podesta and DNC info to disrupt the
campaign, but confidential, secret, and top secret State Department
emails might have been useful to them for other purposes -- purposes
that they might have been wise not to advertise.
And pigs *might* fly. I've seen no evidence that there was classified
information on either Podesta's gmail account or on the DNC server.
And neither have I ... But, Podesta and the DNC sent emails to
Hillary, and Hillary's server was not a government machine. If the
Russians (assuming it was the Russians) weren't already aware of the
sad state of Hillary's server, they were after they hacked Podesta and
the DNC. The fact that "you" have seen no evidence that classified
information was taken from Hillary's server, blackberrys, Huma, her
husband, or all the other potential sources exposed by Podesta and the
DNC, means nothing. That would have been a gold mine for whatever
passes for the KGB these days -- and one they would not share with
Wikileaks. But, maybe the FBI or NSA knows more about this than you
do. Could that be?? If the worst is proven and Hillary's gross
carelessness in maintaining an insecure private server and equally
insecure mobile devices is shown to have exposed classified material
to the Russians, should she be prosecuted?
You and the Republicans keep trying to make this about Hillary and now
you have cooked up this theory that the Russians somehow got information
from Podesta's gmail account or the DNC server that gave them
information about Hillary's server. What do you think that information
might have been and how do you think the Russians were able to use that
information to hack into Hillary's server? You might also want to
consider the time frame of the hacked accounts relative to when Hillary
shut down her server. You are sounding desperate.
As to prosecuting Hillary, that would go to intent and I'm sure that
there is no intent that can be proven.
Intent is not necessary. All that is needed is a finding of "gross
negligence". The wave of Trump mania gripping Democrats is so
profoundly annoying, perhaps Trump could be persuaded to let a Grand
Jury decide the question of gross negligence?
So, you don't know what information the Russians might have gotten from
Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack Hillary's
server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might have happened?
The Russians are not fools. They have to have known about Hillary long
before Podesta. Why would the government want to control mobile
devices used by high ranking State Department officials, like the
Secretary of State? Any ideas? And why on earth would they want to
install and maintain mail servers. Bureaucratic over reach? Surely a
server in a securely locked bathroom is safer than some government
installed and maintained server behind a silly firewall? Right?
Again... So, you don't know what information the Russians might have
gotten from Podesta's or the DNC's emails that would allow them to hack
Hillary's server. Have you checked on the timeline of when that might
have happened?
When did the Russians first hack Podesta or the DNC? When did the
Russians first learn that Hillary had a do-it-yourself mail server?
Gosh, you don't have the slightest idea, and neither do I. Bottom
line, Hillary, consumed by privilege and arrogance, got herself a home
made mail server, that with luck will one day land her in jail.
As I suspected, you are speculating without any evidence to support your
speculation. We don't prosecute people on speculation in this country.
Now, leaving that little red herring aside, it appears that we do have
sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury to subpoena documents
regarding Trump organization collusion with the Russians. That appears
to be why Trump fired Comey. He was getting too close.
Huh? Trump organization collusion with the Russians?? As I suspected,
you are speculating without any evidence to support your speculation.
Tsk tsk.
Not my speculation. The FBI has found enough evidence to justify
issuing subpoenas. Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt that he
fired Comey because of his investigation into Russian interference in
the election which included investigation into collusion. Recall that
the first article of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice!
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/05/14/harvard-law-professor-laurence-tribe-says-trump-must-be-impeached-following-comey-firing
Last I heard there was NO evidence of collusion. Subpoenas are a
discovery device used to obtain evidence. They are not proof of the
existence of evidence.
That is consistent with what I have heard, but in order for a grand jury
to authorize subpoenas, there has to be a reasonable expectation that
they will find something.
Since when has there been a grand jury in this case???
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/breaking-grand-jury-subpoenas-have-been-issued-for-associates-of-michael-flynn/
Hmmm. You got me. That does seem to be true.
Not an issue of "getting you" but one of finding truth.
I expect we are a long way from finding "the truth", if there is any
to find. Were you as interested in finding "the truth" about Hillary,
or is this a partisan thing?
We found the truth about Hillary and the case was closed (twice) so you
are making another feeble attempt at a diversion. Typical!
We never found the truth about Hillary, and I am merely pointing out
your partisan hypocrisy.
What would convince you that the truth about Hillary had been found?
What would convince you that Trump is innocent of wrong doing?
In either case, an impartial decision, up or down, by a special
prosecutor. Would you agree?
Prosecutors do not decide guilt. They prosecute and a court decides
guilt (except in the case of a President where an impeachment is needed).
But, the prosecutors do not get to do their job without being given
evidence by investigators, in this case, the FBI.
The appointment of Robert Mueller to lead the investigation of the
possible collusion between the Trump organization and the Russians is a
good thing, don't you agree?
If it will get the Left to shut up, then absolutely I agree, but if
Mueller fails to find reason for impeachment, the Left will scream,
shout, and run about -- claiming the investigation was rigged. Don't
you agree?
Some will, just as some Republicans will scream, shout and run about if
the decision goes the other way. But, we are a long way from
impeachment. Flynn and Manafort can be tried in federal court. That
is, unless they make a deal to get Trump. Kushner may well get charged
as well. Trump is already complaining that his son-in-law is
"incompetent." Watch for a shake-up in the White House as soon as Trump
gets back from his trip.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
That Trump would attempt to shut down the
investigation by firing Comey is serious and may well be justification
for an impeachment as cited by Prof. Tribe. Of course, the Republican
controlled House is not likely to act on that.
El Castor
2017-05-11 19:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
Why should investigation of criminal activity be limited to Russian
involvement?
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
Very thorough?? Shame on you. The decision to pursue the investigation
or convene a grand jury was up to Loretta Lynch, who just happened to
run into Clinton at the airport and chat with him for an hour about
golf and grandchildren.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
There appears to be more than credible suspicion -- more like
mountains of evidence. At one time I believed that it would be
inappropriate for Trump to pursue a criminal investigation against the
losers, but the losers are making such complete and utter jackasses of
themselves that I can hardly wait to see a handcuffed Hillary doing
the perp walk -- along with several other members of the Obama
administration.
billbowden
2017-05-11 21:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Emily
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:49:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Is there any suspicion of criminal activity from the Obama
administration? If not, what would you investigate?
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
None of this should be news to you. So, my question to you is, what
would you investigate, and if not, why not?
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated. Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials to
Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking another
look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the investigation to
date was very thorough.
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like you
wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
How about the fact the Clinton Global Initiative is shutting down due to
loss of donations?

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-global-initiative-closing/

"Influence Gone: Clinton Global Initiative Closing Down"
Emily
2017-05-11 22:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated.
Of course I was. I wondered why El chose to pretend I was serious.
;-)
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
El Castor
2017-05-12 04:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
As Emily said, Hillary's email server was shown to have been insecure,
but is believed to have both received and transmitted classified
material -- some of which was believed to have been transmitted to
another insecure server or servers and/or found it's way to the
insecure laptop of her assistant, Huma Abedin. She is also believed to
have used unauthorized insecure mobile devices, such as one or more
BlackBerrys, brought them into areas where their presence was
prohibited, and disposed (or lost) them in an unauthorized manner. And
then there was the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is believed to have
extended State Department access to donors in exchange for their
contributions.
I'm guessing Emily was being sarcastic because the emails have already
been investigated.
Of course I was. I wondered why El chose to pretend I was serious.
;-)
Why Emily, I was just giving you credit for an astute observation. I
would never presume to steal your limelight! (-8
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Also, they are related to Russian involvement in the
election since those emails were apparently leaked by Russian officials
to Wikileaks. So, I have no problem with the new director taking
another look at the issue, but that shouldn't take long since the
investigation to date was very thorough.
I'm not aware if there is credible suspicion to justify an investigation
into the Clinton Foundation. I can only say the new director should of
course investigate anything that is credibly suspicious and not
investigate anything that isn't. From your question, it sounded like
you wanted the new director to proactively find some dirt on the Obama
administration even when there is no credible suspicion.
mg
2017-05-11 02:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.

So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?

What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 02:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
mg
2017-05-11 04:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.

Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
El Castor
2017-05-11 06:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
mg
2017-05-11 11:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)

The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.

So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 14:05:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
Even assuming you are correct (with no reason to believe you are
correct) that not crime was committed in your hypothetical, you already
mentioned bribery and computer hacking as two reasonably possible
crimes. It sounds like you want no investigation as if the Russian
involvement in the election isn't troublesome or couldn't possibly
involve any crimes by Americans.
islander
2017-05-11 17:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
Even assuming you are correct (with no reason to believe you are
correct) that not crime was committed in your hypothetical, you already
mentioned bribery and computer hacking as two reasonably possible
crimes. It sounds like you want no investigation as if the Russian
involvement in the election isn't troublesome or couldn't possibly
involve any crimes by Americans.
The FBI's authority extends to criminal activities involving collusion
between a US citizen and a foreign agent that involves national
security. Collusion is the big issue to determine here. Bribery and
computer hacking are smaller issues. The FBI also investigates illegal
monetary transactions including those occurring between individuals in
different countries such as money laundering. There is a separate
investigation of possible involvement of the Trump organization in money
laundering that may well be merged with the election issue.
mg
2017-05-11 18:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:41 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
Even assuming you are correct (with no reason to believe you are
correct) that not crime was committed in your hypothetical, you already
mentioned bribery and computer hacking as two reasonably possible
crimes. It sounds like you want no investigation as if the Russian
involvement in the election isn't troublesome or couldn't possibly
involve any crimes by Americans.
If there was a crime committed, or evidence indicating there
was a crime committed by a U.S. citizen, then obviously
there should be an investigation whether I approve or not,
and I probably would approve because an investigation would
tend to raise the level of public awareness of corruption in
our government, just as the claim of false news has raised
the awareness of the American people of the corrupt news
media.

However, with this story going back about a year, or so, one
never seems to hear about criminal activity and that makes
me suspicious and it makes me wonder if this isn't more of a
political, disinformation campaign, rather than a legal
issue.

One obvious problem for The Establishment, in turning this
into a legal issue, is that anything that applies to one
foreign country can apply to another and anything that
applies to Russia would also apply to Saudi Arabia, for
instance, and anything that applies to Russia and Trump,
would also apply to Saudi Arabia and probably a large number
of U.S. politicians, including the Clintons.

Islander, for instance, speculates about the possibility of
a violation of the National Security Act, but pursuing that
subject, of course, would also raise once again the issue of
Hillary's private server. Similarly, raising the issue of
bribery would also raise the issue of the Clinton's (and
Obama's?) paid speeches.
El Castor
2017-05-11 20:14:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
No one (so far) is suggesting anything of the sort, but illegally
obtained information, trench coats, and stockings over the face in the
dark of night sounds a bit shady to me. Likely a violation of some
espionage act?
Post by mg
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
As far as I know, there are no accusations of exchanges of information
-- just email leaked to the press. Why that would require meetings,
day or night is not clear. I believe what Democrats are hoping to find
is that Trump agents sought help from Russian spys to hack the Hillary
campaign and leak embarrassing documents. If that is the case, and I
doubt that it is, then prosecute the crooks and impeach Trump if he
was involved.
mg
2017-05-12 07:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:14:20 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
No one (so far) is suggesting anything of the sort, but illegally
obtained information, trench coats, and stockings over the face in the
dark of night sounds a bit shady to me. Likely a violation of some
espionage act?
No, the information obtained by hacking the DNC computers
had nothing to do with classified information and in the
hypothetical scenario that I outlined, I certainly didn't
mean to imply anything to do with national security.
Espionage is a different subject altogether.
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
As far as I know, there are no accusations of exchanges of information
-- just email leaked to the press. Why that would require meetings,
day or night is not clear. I believe what Democrats are hoping to find
is that Trump agents sought help from Russian spys to hack the Hillary
campaign and leak embarrassing documents. If that is the case, and I
doubt that it is, then prosecute the crooks and impeach Trump if he
was involved.
The whole thing is nonsensical. First of all there's no
proof that the Russians did it. So, if there's no proof the
Russians did it, how can Trump be an accessory to something
that hasn't been proven and how could the FBI possibly have
enough evidence to justify an investigation and who gave
Comey the authority to go off like a loose cannon on an
investigation that doesn't make any sense? It certainly
wasn't the Justice Dept. They fired him.

And why is this FBI "investigation" of Trump making
national, MSM news while it looks like another story about
hacking, which contains some actual facts, is being blacked
out?
http://theburningtruth.us/it-staff-who-hacked-top-democrats-had-access-to-dnc-emails-may-be-behind-wikileaks-hack/
http://www.trunews.com/article/house-dems-retain-muslim-it-staff-under-investigation
The whole thing just smells bad and it looks to me like
Comey is cooperating with the Obama/Hillary crowd in a
publicity campaign to influence the next election. It will
be interesting to see what kind of a job Comey gets now that
he's been fired and who will be paying his salary.
El Castor
2017-05-12 08:51:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:14:20 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:30:03 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
Probably -- at least I hope so.
My guess is that the candidate hasn't broken any laws in
that hypothetical case -- even if the meeting took place at
midnight on a moonless night and he wore a trench coat with
a nylon stocking over his face. :-)
No one (so far) is suggesting anything of the sort, but illegally
obtained information, trench coats, and stockings over the face in the
dark of night sounds a bit shady to me. Likely a violation of some
espionage act?
No, the information obtained by hacking the DNC computers
had nothing to do with classified information and in the
hypothetical scenario that I outlined, I certainly didn't
mean to imply anything to do with national security.
Espionage is a different subject altogether.
OK, forget espionage, it's still obtained illegally, and I'm pretty
sure that knowingly receiving stolen goods is itself a criminal act. A
few days ago a Russian hacker was sentenced to 27 years by a Seattle
court for the theft of credit card data, but I doubt stealing email
for the purpose of influencing an election would receive a lighter
sentence.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The FBI could, however, pretend to be conducting an
investigation into illegal activity in that hypothetical
situation and hope that they can trap someone into lying to
the FBI which is a crime that people can go to jail for.
So, the question for Comey, and for the political spin
doctors, is whether the FBI is conducting a serious criminal
investigation and, if so, what is the crime they are
investigating? Or, on the other hand, if Comey is actually
conducting a political investigation, why is he doing it and
who authorized it?
As far as I know, there are no accusations of exchanges of information
-- just email leaked to the press. Why that would require meetings,
day or night is not clear. I believe what Democrats are hoping to find
is that Trump agents sought help from Russian spys to hack the Hillary
campaign and leak embarrassing documents. If that is the case, and I
doubt that it is, then prosecute the crooks and impeach Trump if he
was involved.
The whole thing is nonsensical. First of all there's no
proof that the Russians did it. So, if there's no proof the
Russians did it, how can Trump be an accessory to something
that hasn't been proven and how could the FBI possibly have
enough evidence to justify an investigation and who gave
Comey the authority to go off like a loose cannon on an
investigation that doesn't make any sense? It certainly
wasn't the Justice Dept. They fired him.
And why is this FBI "investigation" of Trump making
national, MSM news while it looks like another story about
hacking, which contains some actual facts, is being blacked
out?
http://theburningtruth.us/it-staff-who-hacked-top-democrats-had-access-to-dnc-emails-may-be-behind-wikileaks-hack/
http://www.trunews.com/article/house-dems-retain-muslim-it-staff-under-investigation
The whole thing just smells bad and it looks to me like
Comey is cooperating with the Obama/Hillary crowd in a
publicity campaign to influence the next election. It will
be interesting to see what kind of a job Comey gets now that
he's been fired and who will be paying his salary.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 13:49:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
Post by mg
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
I don't know. So what?
mg
2017-05-11 18:29:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think that the FBI is only
authorized to investigate criminal activities of U.S.
citizens. So, once again I ask the question who authorized
the FBI to engage in an investigation that doesn't involve
criminal activity by a U.S. citizen (assuming that's the
case)?

If there is no indication of serious criminal activities by
a U.S. citizen, I would think that the issue of foreign
intervention in a U.S. election should be taken up by the
U.S. congress and new laws created if they think it's
appropriate. However, I would guess that they would be on
risky constitutional grounds if they wanted to censor the RT
news channel, for instance.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
I don't know. So what?
It all boils down to an issue of whether this is a political
witch hunt, or whether U.S. laws were broken and if it's a
political witch hunt, why is the FBI involved?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-05-11 21:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
What evidence? If the government tells us there's evidence,
but says it can't tell us what the evidence is because that's
classified" or is not being revealed for some other reason,
that's not "evidence".
islander
2017-05-11 22:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
What evidence? If the government tells us there's evidence,
but says it can't tell us what the evidence is because that's
classified" or is not being revealed for some other reason,
that's not "evidence".
Actually it is and there are plenty of examples of where classified
information has been used in court. But, the intelligence agency
responsible for that information has to agree. In the case before us,
Yates and Comey both refused to reveal information in an open hearing,
but that was because it was part of an on-going investigation, not
because it was classified. That makes sense because the FBI does not
want the suspect to know what they have until they bring charges. As to
the information that they got from the NSA, the general rule is to
protect sources and methods. Those are are already pretty much known in
the cyber security community, so I doubt that it will be an issue.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-05-11 23:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
What evidence? If the government tells us there's evidence,
but says it can't tell us what the evidence is because that's
classified" or is not being revealed for some other reason,
that's not "evidence".
Actually it is and there are plenty of examples of where classified
information has been used in court. But, the intelligence agency
responsible for that information has to agree. In the case before us,
Yates and Comey both refused to reveal information in an open hearing,
but that was because it was part of an on-going investigation, not
because it was classified. That makes sense because the FBI does not
want the suspect to know what they have until they bring charges. As to
the information that they got from the NSA, the general rule is to
protect sources and methods. Those are are already pretty much known in
the cyber security community, so I doubt that it will be an issue.
I prefer the short version: "no evidence".
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-12 00:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think that the FBI is only
authorized to investigate criminal activities of U.S.
citizens. So, once again I ask the question who authorized
the FBI to engage in an investigation that doesn't involve
criminal activity by a U.S. citizen (assuming that's the
case)?
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
Post by mg
If there is no indication of serious criminal activities by
a U.S. citizen, I would think that the issue of foreign
intervention in a U.S. election should be taken up by the
U.S. congress and new laws created if they think it's
appropriate. However, I would guess that they would be on
risky constitutional grounds if they wanted to censor the RT
news channel, for instance.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
I don't know. So what?
It all boils down to an issue of whether this is a political
witch hunt, or whether U.S. laws were broken and if it's a
political witch hunt, why is the FBI involved?
As explained above, an investigation is justified. To the contrary,
*not* to investigate is the political move I'm speaking out against.
mg
2017-05-12 08:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:32 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:52:27 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
If that activity is related to Russian involvement in the election, yes.
But not unrelated matters.
I don't get it. What's the point? The FBI investigates
domestic criminal activity. So, exactly what criminal
activity should they be investigating? If it's computer
hacking, that would obviously be illegal under domestic law,
but countries hack each other's computer's all the time. So,
there's nothing particular news worthy there and if it's
foreign hacking, it seems like the investigation ought to be
done by the CIA.
So, what criminal activity should the FBI be investigating?
Do they suspect Trump of taking bribes, for instance, or
what? If so, where's the evidence?
What exactly is the crime that you want the FBI to
investigate?
I have no idea if crimes were committed (computer hacking and bribery
are possibilities). But, there is enough evidence of Russian
involvement to justify an investigation. If Trump makes sure that some
organization (the FBI through the new director, the CIA, or anyone else)
aggressively takes over the investigation, that too would satisfy me
that the Comey firing was justified.
The only illegal activity that I know of are the leaks that
came from the intelligence community about Trump rumors.
So what? Given the clear evidence that the Russian government tried to
influence the election, an investigation should happen.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think that the FBI is only
authorized to investigate criminal activities of U.S.
citizens. So, once again I ask the question who authorized
the FBI to engage in an investigation that doesn't involve
criminal activity by a U.S. citizen (assuming that's the
case)?
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?

If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable and on what basis
does he make that decision, and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?

The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If there is no indication of serious criminal activities by
a U.S. citizen, I would think that the issue of foreign
intervention in a U.S. election should be taken up by the
U.S. congress and new laws created if they think it's
appropriate. However, I would guess that they would be on
risky constitutional grounds if they wanted to censor the RT
news channel, for instance.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Here's a hypothetical question, about Russia, though. If a
Russian agent calls a political candidate and tells him to
meet him at midnight inside the Russian embassy and he'll
give him a file on the dirt he dug up on the other
candidate, no strings attached, and he does, has any law
been broken?
I don't know. So what?
It all boils down to an issue of whether this is a political
witch hunt, or whether U.S. laws were broken and if it's a
political witch hunt, why is the FBI involved?
As explained above, an investigation is justified. To the contrary,
*not* to investigate is the political move I'm speaking out against.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-12 09:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?
It wouldn't cover just any citizen. But because the Russian government
wanted Trump to win, the investigation should include Trump associates
that have ties to the Russian government.
Post by mg
If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable
Congress and the President.
Post by mg
and on what basis
does he make that decision,
Common sense concern over national security.
Post by mg
and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?
Congress and the President (the executive branch) have joint plenary
powers to protect national security, which can include investigating
some US citizens for potential crimes as justified above.
Post by mg
The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch (see above).
mg
2017-05-12 17:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 May 2017 02:54:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?
It wouldn't cover just any citizen. But because the Russian government
wanted Trump to win, the investigation should include Trump associates
that have ties to the Russian government.
Post by mg
If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable
Congress and the President.
Congress has passed no laws and the president hasn't signed
any that designate Russia's involvement in our election as
undersirable, nor have they defined what the word
"involvement" means in that context.

And no law has been passed that would allow the decrease of
any citizen's civil rights, including a those of an American
politician, because of their association with anyone in the
Russian government, nor has any law been passed that would
allow the censorship of Russian television news, for
instance.

Personally, I think that Russian news (RT) is a desirable
asset to American citizens, as I think any other news
channel from any other country probably would be. When it
comes to news sources, my attitude is the more the merrier.

What is it specifically that you think Russia has done that
is undersirable for American citizens?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and on what basis
does he make that decision,
Common sense concern over national security.
Common sense concern over national security, as exercised by
the President, has resulted in the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the illegal
involvement of the U.S. in the war in Syria and the funding
of terrorist, a humanitarian disaster in Yemen, and the
death of as many as 4 million Muslims, and the worst refugee
crisis since WWII, and a big increase in the national debt,
not to mention the deaths and dismemberment, and maiming of
a lot of US troops.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?
Congress and the President (the executive branch) have joint plenary
powers to protect national security, which can include investigating
some US citizens for potential crimes as justified above.
Post by mg
The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch (see above).
Which would mean, obviously, that If the FBI were to
shortcut any citizen's civil rights, they would have to do
it with the permission of the president, who is subject to
the restrictions of the Constitution and the laws of the
land.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-12 17:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Fri, 12 May 2017 02:54:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?
It wouldn't cover just any citizen. But because the Russian government
wanted Trump to win, the investigation should include Trump associates
that have ties to the Russian government.
Post by mg
If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable
Congress and the President.
Congress has passed no laws and the president hasn't signed
any that designate Russia's involvement in our election as
undersirable, nor have they defined what the word
"involvement" means in that context.
And no law has been passed that would allow the decrease of
any citizen's civil rights, including a those of an American
politician, because of their association with anyone in the
Russian government, nor has any law been passed that would
allow the censorship of Russian television news, for
instance.
Personally, I think that Russian news (RT) is a desirable
asset to American citizens, as I think any other news
channel from any other country probably would be. When it
comes to news sources, my attitude is the more the merrier.
What is it specifically that you think Russia has done that
is undersirable for American citizens?
It attempted to get Trump elected by computer hacking. If you think
that is acceptable, I can't persuade you otherwise.
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and on what basis
does he make that decision,
Common sense concern over national security.
Common sense concern over national security, as exercised by
the President, has resulted in the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the illegal
involvement of the U.S. in the war in Syria and the funding
of terrorist, a humanitarian disaster in Yemen, and the
death of as many as 4 million Muslims, and the worst refugee
crisis since WWII, and a big increase in the national debt,
not to mention the deaths and dismemberment, and maiming of
a lot of US troops.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?
Congress and the President (the executive branch) have joint plenary
powers to protect national security, which can include investigating
some US citizens for potential crimes as justified above.
Post by mg
The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch (see above).
Which would mean, obviously, that If the FBI were to
shortcut any citizen's civil rights, they would have to do
it with the permission of the president, who is subject to
the restrictions of the Constitution and the laws of the
land.
What citizen's rights has the FBI shortcutted (whatever that means)?
El Castor
2017-05-12 18:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 May 2017 10:23:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Fri, 12 May 2017 02:54:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?
It wouldn't cover just any citizen. But because the Russian government
wanted Trump to win, the investigation should include Trump associates
that have ties to the Russian government.
Post by mg
If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable
Congress and the President.
Congress has passed no laws and the president hasn't signed
any that designate Russia's involvement in our election as
undersirable, nor have they defined what the word
"involvement" means in that context.
And no law has been passed that would allow the decrease of
any citizen's civil rights, including a those of an American
politician, because of their association with anyone in the
Russian government, nor has any law been passed that would
allow the censorship of Russian television news, for
instance.
Personally, I think that Russian news (RT) is a desirable
asset to American citizens, as I think any other news
channel from any other country probably would be. When it
comes to news sources, my attitude is the more the merrier.
What is it specifically that you think Russia has done that
is undersirable for American citizens?
It attempted to get Trump elected by computer hacking. If you think
that is acceptable, I can't persuade you otherwise.
Perhaps, but that has yet to be proven. If true, it is certainly not
acceptable, but it does not invalidate the results of the election.
While I am not attempting to justify it, the hacking served to expose
Democrat chicanery, and as a voter, for that I am grateful. BTW --
Hillary was reportedly instrumental in giving Russia control of 20% of
US uranium production. I would think they would love her for that.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and on what basis
does he make that decision,
Common sense concern over national security.
Common sense concern over national security, as exercised by
the President, has resulted in the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the illegal
involvement of the U.S. in the war in Syria and the funding
of terrorist, a humanitarian disaster in Yemen, and the
death of as many as 4 million Muslims, and the worst refugee
crisis since WWII, and a big increase in the national debt,
not to mention the deaths and dismemberment, and maiming of
a lot of US troops.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?
Congress and the President (the executive branch) have joint plenary
powers to protect national security, which can include investigating
some US citizens for potential crimes as justified above.
Post by mg
The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch (see above).
Which would mean, obviously, that If the FBI were to
shortcut any citizen's civil rights, they would have to do
it with the permission of the president, who is subject to
the restrictions of the Constitution and the laws of the
land.
What citizen's rights has the FBI shortcutted (whatever that means)?
El Castor
2017-05-12 18:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 May 2017 02:54:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by mg
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Russian involvement in the election in favor of Trump and various Trump
associates having ties to the Russian government constitutes a
reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed by an
American to justify an investigation.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that merely
associating with anyone in the Russian government justifies
an FBI investigation of a U.S. citizen to find out if he has
committed a crime, even though there's no evidence that he
has committed a crime?
It wouldn't cover just any citizen. But because the Russian government
wanted Trump to win, the investigation should include Trump associates
that have ties to the Russian government.
How do we "know" that the Russian government wanted Trump to win?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
If that's the case then who is it in the U.S. government who
is entitled to make the decision that a foreign country's
involvement in our election is undesirable
Congress and the President.
Post by mg
and on what basis
does he make that decision,
Common sense concern over national security.
On that we can agree.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
and what is the legal definition
of "undesirable" and what authority does he have to make
that decision and what authority does he have to sanction
the investigation of a US citizen for having ties to that
country?
Congress and the President (the executive branch) have joint plenary
powers to protect national security, which can include investigating
some US citizens for potential crimes as justified above.
Post by mg
The same questions also pertains to the FBI. How does the
FBI determine that a foreign country's involvement in our
election is undesirable and on what basis does the FBI
Director make that decision and what authority does he have
to make that decision? And where does he get the authority
to investigate a U.S. citizen on the basis that he has
associated with that country?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch (see above).
So let them investigate.
w***@msn.com
2017-05-12 06:10:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
While the FBI is at it, maybe they could look into what gain Hillary had in selling uranium interests to the Russians.
Gary
2017-05-10 20:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
El Castor
2017-05-11 06:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Gary
2017-05-11 13:01:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Maybe the Russians were intercepting all those emails Hillary was sending
Weiner's wife. (that "classified" stuff) And Comey and the Democrats have been
trying to put if off on somebody else.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-11 14:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Does that mean you are OK with what the Russian government did? Do you
agree with candidate Trump that they should have done more?
El Castor
2017-05-11 20:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Does that mean you are OK with what the Russian government did? Do you
agree with candidate Trump that they should have done more?
This is what Trump said ...

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able
to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee
said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be
rewarded mightily by our press.” D. Trump

Humorous sarcasm? And a reminder of the email deleted from Hillary's
server after it had been subpoenaed, as well as the distinct
possibility that her server had been hacked?

Tsk, tsk. I am sure you are hoping that evidence is discovered that
Trump colluded with the Russians.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-05-12 00:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Does that mean you are OK with what the Russian government did? Do you
agree with candidate Trump that they should have done more?
This is what Trump said ...
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able
to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee
said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be
rewarded mightily by our press.” D. Trump
Humorous sarcasm?
Trump isn't capable of sarcasm.
Post by El Castor
And a reminder of the email deleted from Hillary's
server after it had been subpoenaed, as well as the distinct
possibility that her server had been hacked?
Tsk, tsk. I am sure you are hoping that evidence is discovered that
Trump colluded with the Russians.
President Pence? No thanks.
El Castor
2017-05-12 04:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:07:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 11 May 2017 07:05:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 11:09:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Reportedly Trump fired him at the request of Comey's boss, a
new Deputy Director of the DOJ. The Deputy probably saw Comey as a
loose cannon he couldn't trust. In any business organization if a
manager wants to replace one of his direct reports, it happens. Trump
did what he had to do. BTW -- Dems who wanted Comey fired will now
claim that Trump fired Comey because he was about to expose Trump as
Putin's spy.
Trump can prove the firing was justified by hiring a director who will
aggressively investigate Russian involvement in the election.
I hope he does. Should this new hire also investigate possible
criminal activity by members of the previous administration?
I don't see how Russia could have been involved in the election without the aid
of somebody in the previous administration.
They could have hacked mail servers (like the DNC's or the RNC's), or
individual computers, and selectively released embarrassing email --
which they may well have done. Can't see why they would need the help
of anyone in the previous administration (or the Trump campaign) to do
that. BTW -- if in doing so they revealed evidence of chicanery by
Hillary or her campaign, then Boo Hoo for Hillary. The chicanery doers
should have done a better job of concealing their nefarious deeds.
Does that mean you are OK with what the Russian government did? Do you
agree with candidate Trump that they should have done more?
This is what Trump said ...
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able
to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee
said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be
rewarded mightily by our press.” D. Trump
Humorous sarcasm?
Trump isn't capable of sarcasm.
Post by El Castor
And a reminder of the email deleted from Hillary's
server after it had been subpoenaed, as well as the distinct
possibility that her server had been hacked?
Tsk, tsk. I am sure you are hoping that evidence is discovered that
Trump colluded with the Russians.
President Pence? No thanks.
You guys are probably planning to get Pence too. I admit to being a
Paul Ryan fan. Sort of a win win situation. (-8
j***@hotmail.com
2017-05-10 01:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!
It is going to get crowded under that bus.
Nixon didn't start the firings until his second term.
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-05-10 01:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency
by his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through
the halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director
James Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust
and confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following
several tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected
institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of
law enforcement," Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last
week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary
Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's
laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on
the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up
from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop
containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the
FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
Now THAT is a surprise!

It is going to get crowded under that bus.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

On the other hand, this may be just an instance...and not at all more than
just an instance...of what people who voted for The Whining Donald meant
about him The Whining Donald draining that Washington DC swamp!

Are we having fun yet, or are we having fun yet?
wolfbat359
2017-05-10 00:30:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Akutagawa
Clearly, having already helped The Whining Donald win the US presidency by
his baseless October 28th letter to Congress,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Comey is of no further use to The Whining Donald. Consequently, those
famous Whining Donald words "You're Fired" resounds yet again through the
halls of The Whining Donald's administration!
Fun, fun, fun !!!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-fires-FBI-director-James-Comey-11133754.php
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James
Comey Tuesday, saying it was necessary to restore "public trust and
confidence" in the nation's top law enforcement agency following several
tumultuous months.
"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected institutions,
and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,"
Trump said in a statement.
The White House said the search for a new FBI director was beginning
immediately.
The White House made the stunning announcement shortly after the FBI
corrected a sentence in Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last week.
Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, had
sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's laptop, including
some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI said in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on the
laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up from
electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop containing
classified information were not the result of forwarding, the FBI said.
/snip - read the cited linked article/
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/332657-gop-intelligence-chairman-troubled-by-trumps-firing-of-fbi-director

GOP Intelligence chairman troubled by Trump's firing of FBI director

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Tuesday he is “troubled by the timing and reasoning” of President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey.

“I have found Director Comey to be a public servant of the highest order, and his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation by the committee,” Burr said in a statement.

The chairman is leading a Senate investigation into Russia’s influence over the 2016 presidential election.

“In my interactions with the director and with the bureau under his leadership, he an the FBI have always been straightforward with our committee,” Burr said. “Director Comey has been more forthcoming with information than any FBI director I can recall in my tenure on the congressional intelligence committees.” ... (cont)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/332656-three-senate-gop-chairmen-raise-concerns-over-comeys-dismissal


Three Senate GOP chairmen raise concerns over Comey’s dismissal

Three Senate Republican chairmen with oversight of national security issues signaled Tuesday evening their concern over the sudden termination of FBI Director James Comey in the midst of his agency’s investigation of Russia’s influence over the White House.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that he was “disappointed in the president’s decision to remove James Comey from office.”

He said the unexpected dismissal in the midst of a probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible Russian government ties to senior advisers to President Trump warrants the appointment of a special prosecutor.

ADVERTISEMENT
“I have long called for a special congressional committee to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” McCain said. “The president’s decision to remove the FBI director only confirms the need and the urgency for such a committee.”

Joining McCain, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) signaled Tuesday night that he is also concerned about the surprise development.

“While the case for removal of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey laid out by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein was thorough, his removal at this particular time will raise questions,” said Corker, whose panel has examined efforts by Russia to influence elections. ....
Loading...