Garden of Eden Escorts

Oh, oh... FBI reopened the investigation into Clinton.

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,515
6,738
113
So, according to the Daily Beast, the DOJ is going after the Hillary's email handling and the Clinton Foundation. This is going to be entertaining.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,072
58
48
hornyville
So, according to the Daily Beast, the DOJ is going after the Hillary's email handling and the Clinton Foundation. This is going to be entertaining.
The Clintons ... are in the rear view mirror, along with their foundation that had ... what, $200 million when it was dissolved?

They should just forget about it, let it go.

To have these ongoing political vendettas going on continuously, is not good.

:apathy:
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,181
2,571
113
The Clintons ... are in the rear view mirror, along with their foundation that had ... what, $200 million when it was dissolved?

They should just forget about it, let it go.

To have these ongoing political vendettas going on continuously, is not good.

:apathy:
Yeah but if you have a current investigation on a collusion with Russia, money laundering, obstruction of justice - some people prefer the reruns of past stories to current reality.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,515
6,738
113
Wise people advised the Clintons and their bootlickers to let go and accept the results of the election. They didn't listen and Trump is a nasty individual to piss off. So, probably sometime last fall, he unleashed the DOJ. I predicted that this was going to happen.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
102,319
29,041
113
Wise people advised the Clintons and their bootlickers to let go and accept the results of the election. They didn't listen and Trump is a nasty individual to piss off. So, probably sometime last fall, he unleashed the DOJ. I predicted that this was going to happen.
The Atlantic has a summary of the Wolff book, basically saying what's in the book is an 'open secret' like Weinstein's abuse.

The Trump Wolff portrays?

Based on the excerpts now available, Fire and Fury presents a man in the White House who is profoundly ignorant of politics, policy, and anything resembling the substance of perhaps the world’s most demanding job. He is temperamentally unstable. Most of what he says in public is at odds with provable fact, from “biggest inaugural crowd in history” onward. Whether he is aware of it or not, much of what he asserts is a lie. His functional vocabulary is markedly smaller than it was 20 years ago; the oldest person ever to begin service in the White House, he is increasingly prone to repeat anecdotes and phrases. He is aswirl in foreign and financial complications. He has ignored countless norms of modern governance, from the expectation of financial disclosure to the importance of remaining separate from law-enforcement activities. He relies on immediate family members to an unusual degree; he has an exceptionally thin roster of experienced advisers and assistants; his White House staff operations have more in common with an episode of The Apprentice than with any real-world counterpart. He has a shallower reserve of historical or functional information than previous presidents, and a more restricted supply of ongoing information than many citizens. He views all events through the prism of whether they make him look strong and famous, and thus he is laughably susceptible to flattering treatment from the likes of Putin and Xi Jinping abroad or courtiers at home.

And, as Wolff emphasizes, everyone around him considers him unfit for the duties of this office.

...

I feel this way because I believe I chronicled signs of every one of these traits through the campaign cycle, in The Atlantic’s 162-installment “Trump Time Capsule” series. But practically anyone else in political journalism can make a similar claim. Who and what Trump is has been an open secret.

It was because of this open secret that nearly 11 million more Americans voted against Trump last year than for him, including the three million more who voted for Hillary Clinton. (The rest were for Gary Johnson, who got nearly 4.5 million; Jill Stein, with nearly 1.5 million; Evan McMullin, with about 700,000; and a million-plus write-ins.) It was because of this open secret that virtually every journalistic endorsement in the country went against him, including from publications (like The Dallas Morning News or The Arizona Republic) that are ordinarily rock-ribbed Republican, and others (like USA Today) that had not offered endorsements before or (like The Atlantic) generally did so only once per century. It was because of this that his party’s previous nominee, Mitt Romney, publicly denounced him—and that most of the political establishment, Democratic and Republican alike, assumed that no person like him could ever reach the White House.

(The shared certainty that Trump would fall short, which Wolff demonstrates extended to every part of the Trump campaign as well, may explain one of the major journalistic failures of the campaign: the disproportionate harping on Hillary Clinton’s email “problems,” as if this objectively third-tier failing were on a par with Trump’s grossly disqualifying traits. Most of the press assumed she would soon be in office; this was a warm-up for the kind of inspection real presidents should be prepared to undergo.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/it-was-an-open-secret/549653/?utm_source=fbb

The real kicker?

Who is also in on this open secret? Virtually everyone in a position to do something about it, which at the moment means members of the Republican majority in Congress.

They know what is wrong with Donald Trump. They know why it’s dangerous. They understand—or most of them do—the damage he can do to a system of governance that relies to a surprising degree on norms rather than rules, and whose vulnerability has been newly exposed. They know—or should—about the ways Trump’s vanity and avarice are harming American interests relative to competitors like Russia and China, and partners and allies in North America, Europe, and the Pacific.

They know. They could do something: hearings, investigations, demands for financial or health documents, subpoenas. Even the tool they used against the 42nd president, for failings one percent as grave as those of the 45th: impeachment.

They know. They could act. And they don’t. The failure of responsibility starts with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but it doesn’t end with them. Every member of a bloc-voting majority shares responsibility for not acting on their version of the open secret. “Independent” Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski share it. “Thoughtful” ones, like Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake. Those (in addition to Flake) who have nothing to lose electorally, from Bob Corker to Orrin Hatch. When they vote as a majority against strong investigations, against subpoenas, against requirements for financial disclosure, and most of all against protecting Robert Mueller and his investigation, they share complicity in the open secret.

We are watching the political equivalent of the Weinstein board paying off the objects of his abuse. We are watching Fox pay out its tens of millions to O’Reilly’s victims. But we’re watching it in real time, with the secret shared worldwide, and the stakes immeasurably higher.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
The Clintons played a key role (and helped fund) the fake news story about Russian "collusion."

Having spent all of 2017 pushing the fake news story in order to undermine the results of the election, they shouldn't be surprised that the apparent racketeering at the Clinton Foundation is now being investigated.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,951
125,782
113
Trump’s Anti-Hillary Crusade Could Break the Justice Department
There will be severe, lasting damage if prosecutors reopen the Clinton investigation even if it’s only to appease the president.

To be effective, the Department of Justice must be independent from partisan politics.

And, just as important, it must be perceived as independent.

Today’s reporting in The Daily Beast that the Department of Justice is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server threatens to undermine that essential virtue.

Federal investigations are based on collection of evidence and legal analysis to determine whether a prosecution is in the best interests of justice. In the case of Hillary Clinton’s email server, FBI agents reviewed emails, interviewed witnesses, and reached the conclusion that no charges were appropriate.

In summer of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey publicly announced that the FBI had concluded its investigation and was recommending against charging Clinton. Calling her conduct “extremely careless,” Comey nonetheless stated that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Clinton for her conduct. Looking to prior cases, Comey said, “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” He noted that all previous prosecutions involved “some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Comey reopened the investigation in October 2016 when seemingly new Clinton emails were found on a laptop computer, only to close it a few days later when the FBI reached the same conclusion as they had in July. That was the end of the investigation.

Until now.

During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump frequently blasted DOJ’s treatment of Clinton. In the past month, President Trump has renewed his criticism of the Justice Department regarding its treatment of “Crooked” Hillary, putting “Justice” in quotation marks in one tweet, and later demanding the “Deep State Justice Dept” finally act.

And now, it appears that DOJ is reopening the investigation. Renewing an investigation into the president’s political opponent just because he demands it is wrong and dangerous. The Department of Justice is not the president’s personal legal team, designed to lock up his rivals. DOJ has a long tradition of independence from the White House. Bowing to the wishes of the president to investigate his political enemies would undermine public confidence in the objectivity of DOJ’s charging decisions in this case and all others.

One legitimate reason to reopen an investigation would be the discovery of new evidence. Just as the FBI reopened the investigation in October upon finding new email messages on a laptop computer, reopening it again could be appropriate if some other new evidence has been discovered or new witness has been identified. But today’s report does not indicate that any new evidence has been discovered.

In the absence of newly discovered evidence, it would undermine the non-partisan nature of the Justice Department to reopen an investigation just because of a change in the party that is in charge of the executive branch. Reopening this case could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations to reconsider all charging decisions with which they disagree.

It may be, as some have speculated, that the new investigation is designed merely to appease Trump, and that officials know full well that no charges will emerge. Even that sort of charade would be an abuse of the awesome powers of the Department of Justice and a waste of resources that could be better spent on new cases. One would hope that DOJ’s leaders would have the backbone to reject such pressures rather than to pretend to accede to them.

At the end of his remarks announcing his recommendation in the Clinton case, Comey said, “What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

Will we be able to say the same about the new investigation?


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-anti-hillary-crusade-could-break-the-justice-department
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,951
125,782
113
In other words, there appears to be no fresh evidence to cause the renewed investigation. Trump appears to have done this - yet again! - to distract viewers from the bizarre train wreck of his own administration.

In any event, no one cares except his hard core supporters who obsess over HRC as being the poster girl for the "Swamp" and the antithesis of small town, traditional American values. The Clintons are distant past political news and most Dems are busy speculating who the new crop of presidential potentials will be.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,951
125,782
113
The Clintons played a key role (and helped fund) the fake news story about Russian "collusion."

Having spent all of 2017 pushing the fake news story in order to undermine the results of the election, they shouldn't be surprised that the apparent racketeering at the Clinton Foundation is now being investigated.
:crazy:
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,461
6,254
113
In other words, there appears to be no fresh evidence to cause the renewed investigation. Trump appears to have done this - yet again! - to distract viewers from the bizarre train wreck of his own administration.

In any event, no one cares except his hard core supporters who obsess over HRC as being the poster girl for the "Swamp" and the antithesis of small town, traditional American values. The Clintons are distant past political news and most Dems are busy speculating who the new crop of presidential potentials will be.
There is fresh evidence that Strzok was a partisan who influenced decisions dealing both with the DNC hack and the Weiner laptop.

And now we have word of unreported highly classified emails on the laptop.

I'd say that's enough for a second look. Strzok made them look bad. Better to clear the air.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,515
6,738
113
There is fresh evidence that Strzok was a partisan who influenced decisions dealing both with the DNC hack and the Weiner laptop.

And now we have word of unreported highly classified emails on the laptop.

I'd say that's enough for a second look. Strzok made them look bad. Better to clear the air.
The Clinton campaign tried to produce an October surprise or, as the FBI individuals were kind enough to describe in their emails, an "insurance". That needs to be investigated in depth and rigorously and the guilty parties need to be made example of. Can't have the tail wagging the dog.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,987
113
Wise people advised the Clintons and their bootlickers to let go and accept the results of the election. They didn't listen and Trump is a nasty individual to piss off. So, probably sometime last fall, he unleashed the DOJ. I predicted that this was going to happen.
You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.

The alt-right need to realize that Hillary isn't the president so their ridiculous crusade against her is pointless.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,461
6,254
113
You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.

The alt-right need to realize that Hillary isn't the president so their ridiculous crusade against her is pointless.
And wrote a book....and apparently funded the whole Russia narrative. And possibly used a compromised FBI field director.

Yup she is pure as the driven snow....
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,067
0
0
You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.

The alt-right need to realize that Hillary isn't the president so their ridiculous crusade against her is pointless.
You could as easily make the argument that Trump won the election, and since no one has shown that he won because of Russian activity, best to just shelve this whole Russia investigation! Fact is, it's legitimate for Congress to secure elections from foreign interference, and it's legitimate for Congress to identify and resolve national security breaches committed by prior office holders in order to prevent future security breaches. In both cases however, it's best to wrap up these investigations in a timely fashion so that something can be done about either/both issues before the same mistakes are made all over again.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,987
113
You could as easily make the argument that Trump won the election,...
He did. Don't know how you missed that.

And the investigation will be shelved when the FBI feels they have enough information to decide whether to lay further charges or dismiss the case.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,067
0
0
He did. Don't know how you missed that.

And the investigation will be shelved when the FBI feels they have enough information to decide whether to lay further charges or dismiss the case.
My point is that your positions on these issues are logically inconsistent.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,987
113
My point is that your positions on these issues are logically inconsistent.
How so?

Trump won the election. The FBI believes there was illegal contact with Russia during the campaign. Two separate stories and any connection between the two is not proven at this point..
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts