Barr opens an investigation into the FBI Trump Russia investigation without the results of the TR investigation even being publiclally known...

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
Do you recall who the lead FBI investagator on the Clinton case was? I'm pretty sure he wasn't a republician.
Are you talking about Peter Strzok, the guy who repeatedly pushed to investigate Clinton more aggressively, pushed to re-open the email investigation just before the election, and co-wrote the letter that torpedoed Clinton's presidential campaign?

I can't wait to hear your latest evidence free conspiracy theory about how Strzok was biased against Trump and Republicans despite literally every action he took showing the opposite.
 
Feb 4, 2009
21,349
3,883
126
Do you recall who the lead FBI investagator on the Clinton case was? I'm pretty sure he wasn't a republician.
Doesn’t matter, this investigation is using the Current Justice Department all of whom have been appointed by the President.
Same with the wall, why didn’t it get done in the first two years when the Presidents party controlled everything.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
Doesn’t matter, this investigation is using the Current Justice Department all of whom have been appointed by the President.
Same with the wall, why didn’t it get done in the first two years when the Presidents party controlled everything.
It's kind of funny how these clowns are totally convinced that Clinton Did All The Crimes and yet even the guy who has no problems with corruptly using federal law enforcement to attack his political enemies can't seem to get a case together on her.

At what point will they just admit they were wrong the whole time? (the answer is never)

It's just like how Greenman keeps insisting that Strzok was part of some nefarious scheme against Trump. The fact that he can't locate even a single shred of evidence that's the case doesn't seem to bother him.
 
Feb 4, 2009
21,349
3,883
126
It's kind of funny how these clowns are totally convinced that Clinton Did All The Crimes and yet even the guy who has no problems with corruptly using federal law enforcement to attack his political enemies can't seem to get a case together on her.

At what point will they just admit they were wrong the whole time? (the answer is never)

It's just like how Greenman keeps insisting that Strzok was part of some nefarious scheme against Trump. The fact that he can't locate even a single shred of evidence that's the case doesn't seem to bother him.
Careful these guys have very sensitive feelings. Don’t want to hurt those feelz and listen to them cry.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
14,189
1,041
126
It's kind of funny how these clowns are totally convinced that Clinton Did All The Crimes and yet even the guy who has no problems with corruptly using federal law enforcement to attack his political enemies can't seem to get a case together on her.

At what point will they just admit they were wrong the whole time? (the answer is never)

It's just like how Greenman keeps insisting that Strzok was part of some nefarious scheme against Trump. The fact that he can't locate even a single shred of evidence that's the case doesn't seem to bother him.
Strzok despisd Trump, and wasn't capable of being impartail. He was fired
Are you talking about Peter Strzok, the guy who repeatedly pushed to investigate Clinton more aggressively, pushed to re-open the email investigation just before the election, and co-wrote the letter that torpedoed Clinton's presidential campaign?

I can't wait to hear your latest evidence free conspiracy theory about how Strzok was biased against Trump and Republicans despite literally every action he took showing the opposite.
We must be talking about two different Strzoks. I'm talking about the fellow who told his girlfriend that he would stop Trump, that Hillary should win a hunderd million to nothing. The guy who was so over the top he was canned for it. This would be the same fellow who's girlfriend asked him to take it easy on Hillary, I'm not sure how his wife felt about it.
To the topic at hand, Hillary ignored the rules, she did it because she knew that at her level there would be no consaquences. That's how it is when you're at the top, and it doesn't matter what side you're on. The very few with actual convictions end up getting screwed, Al Frankin is a perfect example of that. I didn't agree with his politics, but I honestly believe he was a good man. Just as I honestly believe that Strzok allowed his hate of Trump to color his judgement.
 
Feb 4, 2009
21,349
3,883
126
Strzok despisd Trump, and wasn't capable of being impartail. He was fired

We must be talking about two different Strzoks. I'm talking about the fellow who told his girlfriend that he would stop Trump, that Hillary should win a hunderd million to nothing. The guy who was so over the top he was canned for it. This would be the same fellow who's girlfriend asked him to take it easy on Hillary, I'm not sure how his wife felt about it.
To the topic at hand, Hillary ignored the rules, she did it because she knew that at her level there would be no consaquences. That's how it is when you're at the top, and it doesn't matter what side you're on. The very few with actual convictions end up getting screwed, Al Frankin is a perfect example of that. I didn't agree with his politics, but I honestly believe he was a good man. Just as I honestly believe that Strzok allowed his hate of Trump to color his judgement.
So back to the original question. Why hasn’t she been charged?

Is Trumps Justice Department and all of Congress that was Republican controlled for two years utterly incompetent or is there nothing to charge?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
Strzok despisd Trump, and wasn't capable of being impartail. He was fired

We must be talking about two different Strzoks. I'm talking about the fellow who told his girlfriend that he would stop Trump, that Hillary should win a hunderd million to nothing. The guy who was so over the top he was canned for it. This would be the same fellow who's girlfriend asked him to take it easy on Hillary, I'm not sure how his wife felt about it.
To the topic at hand, Hillary ignored the rules, she did it because she knew that at her level there would be no consaquences. That's how it is when you're at the top, and it doesn't matter what side you're on. The very few with actual convictions end up getting screwed, Al Frankin is a perfect example of that. I didn't agree with his politics, but I honestly believe he was a good man. Just as I honestly believe that Strzok allowed his hate of Trump to color his judgement.
Does that mean he had to like Hillary or could it mean that he just knew Trump was a hundred million times worse than Hillary, even if Hillary had problems?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
Strzok despisd Trump, and wasn't capable of being impartail. He was fired

We must be talking about two different Strzoks. I'm talking about the fellow who told his girlfriend that he would stop Trump, that Hillary should win a hunderd million to nothing. The guy who was so over the top he was canned for it. This would be the same fellow who's girlfriend asked him to take it easy on Hillary, I'm not sure how his wife felt about it.
He clearly was capable of being impartial, as extensive investigation into his actions did not uncover a single improper act by Strzok in either investigation. Can you explain why you would believe someone was incapable of being impartial despite literally reams of evidence showing they acted impartially? I mean there was literally a whole investigation about it. Do you know something the FBI Inspector General doesn't?

Regardless, you appear to be saying that Strzok acted in some way in favor of Clinton again, without evidence, and despite the fact that Strzok was the person who recommended reopening the investigation and co-wrote the letter that probably cost her the election. I imagine you would agree if someone was determined to find bias in Strzok's case the most logical conclusion would be that he was biased AGAINST Clinton and in favor of Trump, no?

I mean otherwise your argument is that the guy who undertook actions that probably won Trump the presidency was biased against him which would be... uhmm... quite a logical leap.

To the topic at hand, Hillary ignored the rules, she did it because she knew that at her level there would be no consaquences. That's how it is when you're at the top, and it doesn't matter what side you're on. The very few with actual convictions end up getting screwed, Al Frankin is a perfect example of that. I didn't agree with his politics, but I honestly believe he was a good man.
So you're saying that the FBI has a viable criminal case against Clinton and is electing not to pursue it? What evidence and legal analysis is this based on, specifically?

Just as I honestly believe that Strzok allowed his hate of Trump to color his judgement.
The main problem with this belief of course being that you have been unable to provide even a single, solitary example of how Strzok took an improper action in regards to any investigation of Clinton or Trump. You keep implying it by saying things like it colored his judgment but I suspect even you realize the reason you keep implying it and not showing examples is because you know there are no examples.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
Do you recall who the lead FBI investagator on the Clinton case was? I'm pretty sure he wasn't a republician.
Conservatives will impugn the integrity of anybody who won't lie for the Donald, even the NWS.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
Conservatives will impugn the integrity of anybody who won't lie for the Donald, even the NWS.
It’s also funny how he’s trying to paint one of the people most responsible for Clinton losing the election as biased in her favor, all because his political tribe needed to invent a reason as to why all those felonies the Mueller report describes aren’t real.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,095
1,681
126
Are you talking about Peter Strzok, the guy who repeatedly pushed to investigate Clinton more aggressively, pushed to re-open the email investigation just before the election, and co-wrote the letter that torpedoed Clinton's presidential campaign?

I can't wait to hear your latest evidence free conspiracy theory about how Strzok was biased against Trump and Republicans despite literally every action he took showing the opposite.
Well duh, its Deep State Strzok, the same one that forced the Overstock CEO to bang the Russian woman along with a bunch of Republicans so they could get dirt on Turmp (and Clinton, wait, that wouldn't fit morons like Greenman's narrative that Strzok was biased for Clinton against Turmp...shit I'm starting to think he might just be really stupid and very dishonest).
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
409
172
116
I see McCabe is going to face prosecution ... for leaking to the press about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and then lying about it. How long do you think it's going to take for the usual suspects to try to claim that this somehow vindicates Trump?
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
409
172
116
I see McCabe is going to face prosecution ... for leaking to the press about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and then lying about it. How long do you think it's going to take for the usual suspects to try to claim that this somehow vindicates Trump?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
96,892
11,681
136
Strzok despisd Trump, and wasn't capable of being impartail. He was fired
Because Law Enforcement Officers that investigate criminals, and all other literate humans on the planet despise Trump. How does that make him biased in the dispensing of his duties?

Why won't a single conservative on this board grow a fucking pair of balls and answer the simplest fucking question related to this broken line of thinking: By your logic, all convictions of organized crime, through FBI investigation, must now be vacated due to "potential FBI bias against people they likely don't like at all."

So, when is that going to happen? When are you dummies going to go to the mat for all of the Cosa Nostra and other gangsters that were sent to prison by FBI agents and their investigations? When?

Guess you can't investigate organized crime anymore if you don't like the criminals!

We must be talking about two different Strzoks. I'm talking about the fellow who told his girlfriend that he would stop Trump, that Hillary should win a hunderd million to nothing. The guy who was so over the top he was canned for it. This would be the same fellow who's girlfriend asked him to take it easy on Hillary, I'm not sure how his wife felt about it.
To the topic at hand, Hillary ignored the rules, she did it because she knew that at her level there would be no consaquences. That's how it is when you're at the top, and it doesn't matter what side you're on. The very few with actual convictions end up getting screwed, Al Frankin is a perfect example of that. I didn't agree with his politics, but I honestly believe he was a good man. Just as I honestly believe that Strzok allowed his hate of Trump to color his judgement.
Also, where did this "I think he hates Trump, therefore he is Hilary's best friend!" sort of logic come from?

How does that make sense?


...oh right, i think you blocked me. Sad. :(
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,092
390
126
So back to the original question. Why hasn’t she been charged?

Is Trumps Justice Department and all of Congress that was Republican controlled for two years utterly incompetent or is there nothing to charge?
Doesn't help that several key people around Clinton were given immunity, and people in charge of investigating Clinton were the same ones investigating Trump. The facts are starting surface and people will be positioning themselves for deals with AG Barr.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
I see McCabe is going to face prosecution ... for leaking to the press about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and then lying about it. How long do you think it's going to take for the usual suspects to try to claim that this somehow vindicates Trump?
That remains to be seen. It's all sleazy Trump admin vindictiveness, anyway-

The list could go on and on and on, but you get the point. Indeed, the extraordinary thing about McCabe’s case compared to these ones is that the Justice Department appears to have engineered McCabe’s firing, ostensibly in response to the inspector general’s finding of a lack of candor, mere hours before his retirement eligibility. It’s true that the FBI routinely treats lack of candor as a fireable offense—but it remains unexplained why the Justice Department seemingly raced the clock in order to push McCabe out rather than proceed at the usual pace and note that he would have been subject to disciplinary proceedings if he had not retired. That alone is a vindictive level of harshness relative to the norm. Criminal prosecution is several standard deviations from the norm.

Worth reading.
 
Feb 4, 2009
21,349
3,883
126
Doesn't help that several key people around Clinton were given immunity, and people in charge of investigating Clinton were the same ones investigating Trump. The facts are starting surface and people will be positioning themselves for deals with AG Barr.
So back to the original question when will Trumps Justice Department charge Her? Why didn’t they charge her when Republicans controlled the Presidency, House, Senate and Justice Department for two year?

Are they incompetent?
or
Is there nothing to charge?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
Because Law Enforcement Officers that investigate criminals, and all other literate humans on the planet despise Trump. How does that make him biased in the dispensing of his duties?

Why won't a single conservative on this board grow a fucking pair of balls and answer the simplest fucking question related to this broken line of thinking: By your logic, all convictions of organized crime, through FBI investigation, must now be vacated due to "potential FBI bias against people they likely don't like at all."

So, when is that going to happen? When are you dummies going to go to the mat for all of the Cosa Nostra and other gangsters that were sent to prison by FBI agents and their investigations? When?

Guess you can't investigate organized crime anymore if you don't like the criminals!

Also, where did this "I think he hates Trump, therefore he is Hilary's best friend!" sort of logic come from?

How does that make sense?


...oh right, i think you blocked me. Sad. :(
For obvious reasons Greenman and every other conservative has never addressed the fact that law enforcement officials frequently dislike the targets of their investigations but everyone would laugh at the idea that John Gotti's prosecution was illegitimate or biased because an FBI agent said he was a scumbag or whatever.
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
409
172
116
That remains to be seen. It's all sleazy Trump admin vindictiveness, anyway-
It's closer than it was when the lawfareblog post was written. There's news on the matter from today.


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
63,798
10,996
126
That remains to be seen. It's all sleazy Trump admin vindictiveness, anyway-


Worth reading.
Yup, the Trump Administration is likely attempting to imprison former federal law enforcement officials because they presided over a criminal investigation into Trump and his associates.

Any conservatives want to jump on the impeachment train yet?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
Yup, the Trump Administration is likely attempting to imprison former federal law enforcement officials because they presided over a criminal investigation into Trump and his associates.

Any conservatives want to jump on the impeachment train yet?
Is it the same train as the double down one? If not I think they'll be boarding that one instead.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY