Grassley Wants Answers About FBI Raid on Whistleblower

Dec 2013
11,500
12,393
Work
#11
Gladly. The point of posting this is not a generalized concern about whistleblowers or the FBI. It's specifically about Clinton, and the long-standing right-wing myth that she must have done something crooked in relation to Uranium One, even though no evidence has even hinted at that. The point of pushing this story is to further that myth, with the idea that there's evidence out there, waiting to come out, and that the person who made it available is being punished for doing so. What I'm saying is that if more information comes out on this that confirms there was no information showing any wrongdoing by Clinton, you won't be told about that by your propaganda outlets -- and even if you were, you would definitely not show up here to share it with the group.
But information that Clinton is clean is really just more evidence that the deep state tentacles go deeper than we thought—the evil deceiver is so powerful that even the people investigating it are compromised!

No other explanation makes any sense, really.
 
Sep 2017
3,970
4,904
Massachusetts
#12
But information that Clinton is clean is really just more evidence that the deep state tentacles go deeper than we thought—the evil deceiver is so powerful that even the people investigating it are compromised!

No other explanation makes any sense, really.
Yep. The more effort we expend without finding any dirt on her, the more it proves just how dirty she is.
 
Sep 2017
3,970
4,904
Massachusetts
#16
I guess you missed Comey's exoneration speech for HRC.
I saw Comey abuse his office and disgrace himself with his speech. Rather than just doing what long precedent said you're supposed to do when you can't find a basis for indicting someone --release a brief, impersonal press release saying you have finished the investigation and found no evidence of criminal conduct-- he instead decided to use the event to try to get Trump elected. Although he reluctantly had to admit that the witch-hunt for evidence of a crime had failed, he turned it into a big press conference, starring the head of the FBI, personally smearing the supposed carelessness of the candidate he wanted to lose. He carefully avoided any legally meaningful terms when smearing Clinton, so she could have no legal defense against it, while still giving the GOP the sound bites they needed to hammer her.

The really amazing thing, though, is that even when that failed and Clinton's poll numbers bounced back strongly from the hit job he'd done on Trump's behalf, he didn't give up. He intervened in the election a second time, so close to the election that her poll numbers didn't have time to rebound fully before the election. He sent a report to Congress suggesting, with no basis whatsoever, that there might be evidence of lawbreaking by Clinton in emails found on Weiner's laptop. He did his partisan political job well that time, and it was enough to give his party-mate the presidency. That ensured that Comey was allowed to continue as head of the FBI after the changing of the guard. The only cold comfort is eventually he got fired, anyway, so his corruption only bought him a few more months on the job.
 
Jan 2015
35,774
9,105
Great State of Texas
#17
I saw Comey abuse his office and disgrace himself with his speech. Rather than just doing what long precedent said you're supposed to do when you can't find a basis for indicting someone --release a brief, impersonal press release saying you had finished the investigation and found no evidence of criminal conduct-- he instead decided to use the event to try to get Trump elected. Although he reluctantly had to admit that the witch-hunt for evidence of a crime had failed, he turned it into a big press conference, starring the head of the FBI, personally smearing the supposed carelessness of the candidate he wanted to lose. He carefully avoided any legally meaningful terms when smearing Clinton, so she could have no legal defense against it, while still giving the GOP the sound bites they needed to hammer her.

The really amazing thing, though, is that even when that failed and Clinton's poll numbers bounced back strongly from the hit job he'd done on Trump's behalf, he didn't give up. He intervened in the election a second time, so close to the election that her poll numbers didn't have time to rebound fully before the election. He sent a report to Congress suggesting, with no basis whatsoever, that there might be evidence of lawbreaking by Clinton in emails found on Weiner's laptop. He did his partisan political job well that time, and it was enough to give his party-mate the presidency. That ensured that Comey was allowed to continue as head of the FBI after the changing of the guard. The only cold comfort is eventually he got fired, anyway, so his corruption only bought him a few more months on the job.
That's an absolute lie and anyone who listened to Comey's speech knows it's a LIE.
 
Sep 2017
3,970
4,904
Massachusetts
#18
That's an absolute lie and anyone who listened to Comey's speech knows it's a LIE.
The speech is publicly available and my statements can be confirmed. For example, he said "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

That is a very artfully crafted smear. First, he lumps Clinton in with her colleagues, so that anything that could be said about any of them can be used as a smear against "them" in general. Then he uses an utterly legally meaningless phrase to smear them collectively: "extremely careless." If he'd gone with something legally meaningful, like "grossly negligent," Clinton could have sued to clear her name -- forcing him to back up that the elements of gross negligence had been established (which they weren't). That would have forced a retraction of the false claim. But since calling her "extremely careless" is no more legally meaningful than calling her "a total bitch," she had no recourse available to her. Although it's deeply unethical for Comey to use his office to personally smear someone that way, and should have gotten him fired immediately, it's not something that gives rise to legal rights for Clinton. Comey's not a dumb man. He knew what he was doing when he turned what should have been a pro forma "nothing to see here" press release into a star turn to smear someone from the other party. That's a better example of the "Deep State" at work than all the garbage right-wingers have been imagining.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer

Similar Discussions