The FBI in revolt? re Clinton

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
The FBI in revolt? re Clinton

The Daily Caller.

According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

 

DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”

 

He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”

 

He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very dangerous moment.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself.

The fabric really couldn't give a rat's ass about Clinton's e-mails.

Well, except for the fabric that supports Trump.  And it looks like that fabric is unravelling regardless.

bekayne
Mr. Magoo

What's funny is that American voters seem, at the least, resigned to the notion that campaigning isn't an opportunity for candidates to state their positions, and voters to choose among them, but rather that it's a time to try do have your opponent declared ineligible for office (because of his Kenyan birth certificate, for example).  This is how it works now.  It's the new normal.

josh

The Daily Caller? Brietbart and Drudge unavailable?

bekayne

josh wrote:
The Daily Caller? Brietbart and Drudge unavailable?

Don't forget Gateway Pundit, American Thinker, etc. There's a whole buffet of Right Wing lunacy.

Cody87

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Cody87

An example, though a bit abstract, to illustrate my last point.

 

Two people might agree that if the wrong president is elected, it will cause WW3. But disagree on which president is the "wrong" one. Or agree but for different reasons.

Someone who believes trump is actually a racist in the way that hitler is a racist would naturally (and rightly) support hillary.

Someone who believes that hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse would naturally (and rightly) support trump.

Then these two people will argue past each other, and not even about who will cause WW3 (where one or the other might actually change an opinion in some cases), but on proxy issues like who is the worse abuser of women, who is the real racist, and other irrelevant and impossible-to-prove mud-slinging.

Everyone hates at least one of the candidates, but I bet 90% of the population is not even self aware enough to know the actual reason they hate the candidate they hate. They have the reasons they say they hate the candidate but, chances are, that is just the lie they say to themself and anyone else.

I'm sure some of you nodded your heads to that last one and thought "yes, and the real reason Trump supporters hate Clinton is because she's a woman!" If you did, for the love of god, read a wider range of news.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Someone who believes that hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse would naturally (and rightly) support trump.

Is that one of those "facts" that people sadly cannot agree on?

Because that's your speculation, not a fact.

Quote:
but I bet 90% of the population is not even self aware enough to know the actual reason they hate the candidate they hate. They have the reasons they say they hate the candidate but, chances are, that is just the lie they say to themself and anyone else.

I know, right?

Fortunately, the other 10% are honest enough to stick with FACTS, like:

Quote:
hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Independent fact finding organizations have found that Trump is the most deceitful major politician out there while Clinton is generally truthful compared to other politicians.

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

NorthReport

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Someone who believes that hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse would naturally (and rightly) support trump.

Is that one of those "facts" that people sadly cannot agree on?

Because that's your speculation, not a fact.

Quote:
but I bet 90% of the population is not even self aware enough to know the actual reason they hate the candidate they hate. They have the reasons they say they hate the candidate but, chances are, that is just the lie they say to themself and anyone else.

I know, right?

Fortunately, the other 10% are honest enough to stick with FACTS, like:

Quote:
hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse

I made two roughly equally absurd statements to illustrate how two people can correctly reach very different conclusions based on different starting premises. I notice you didn't object to me saying trump was as racist as hitler.

Cody87

JKR wrote:
Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Independent fact finding organizations have found that Trump is the most deceitful major politician out there while Clinton is generally truthful compared to other politicians.

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

The FBI is "independant". The corporate media is "independant". Polling is "independant". Just because an entity is "independant" doesn't mean it is free from interference in practice (hence the " marks), and doesn't have it's own biases.

I have seen polifact rate essentially identical statements from Trump and Sanders mostly false for Trump and mostly true for Sanders. I have also seen them take a true statement from Trump downgraded to half true on minor technicalities that are not relevant to the statement. 

But even beyond that, who chooses which statements get assessed for truthfulness? Do they go back and review when new information becomes available?

I bet they didn't assess when Clinton told the FBI she can't remember various details about her email server. I bet they didn't assess when Clinton told the public she was "overheating" or had a cough because of "allergies". And I bet they gave Trump a "false" when he says it was Bernie supporters starting violence at his rallies. As it turns out, it was Clinton's paid protestors pretending to be Bernie supporters - so it'll stay false even though we all know (if we're being honest with ourselves and each other) the important point is that it's not his supporters causing the problems.

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Not an argument. Do you think the readers on Rabble are so naive as to be persuaded by your pathetic attempt at an appeal to ridicule? Try harder.

JKR

Cody87 wrote:

But even beyond that, who chooses which statements get assessed for truthfulness? Do they go back and review when new information becomes available?

Usually they just have to go back to the video of Trump to see that he is lying.

iyraste1313

Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agentsby Tyler DurdenOct 30, 2016 6:30 

Conspiracy theories have swirled in recent days as to why FBI Director James Comey reopened Hillary's email investigation after just closing it back in July concluding that, although Hillary had demonstrated gross negligence in her establishment of a private email server, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.  Democrats, after lavishing Comey with praise for months on concluding his investigation in an "impartial" way, have since lashed out at him for seeking to influence the 2016 election cycle with Hillary herself describing his recent actions as "deeply troubling".  Republicans, on the other hand, have praised Comey's recent efforts as an attempt to correct a corrupt investigation that seemingly ignored critical evidence while granting numerous immunity agreements to Clinton staffers.

According to the Daily Mail, and a source close to James Comey, the decision, at least in part, came after he"could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI" who "felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist."

James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

 

'The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary,' said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

 

'Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,' said the source. 'They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.'

 

According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice.

 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

 

'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.

the proof is in the pudding...there are facts out there as described here, whether they may come from so called discreditted sources or not...facts are facts!

bekayne

iyraste1313 wrote:

Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agentsby Tyler DurdenOct 30, 2016 6:30 

Conspiracy theories have swirled in recent days as to why FBI Director James Comey reopened Hillary's email investigation after just closing it back in July concluding that, although Hillary had demonstrated gross negligence in her establishment of a private email server, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.  Democrats, after lavishing Comey with praise for months on concluding his investigation in an "impartial" way, have since lashed out at him for seeking to influence the 2016 election cycle with Hillary herself describing his recent actions as "deeply troubling".  Republicans, on the other hand, have praised Comey's recent efforts as an attempt to correct a corrupt investigation that seemingly ignored critical evidence while granting numerous immunity agreements to Clinton staffers.

According to the Daily Mail, and a source close to James Comey, the decision, at least in part, came after he"could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI" who "felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist."

James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

 

'The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary,' said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

 

'Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,' said the source. 'They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.'

 

According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice.

 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

 

'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.

the proof is in the pudding...there are facts out there as described here, whether they may come from so called discreditted sources or not...facts are facts!

So he interfered in an election to make things better for himself around the water cooler at work?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Steve M. has an alternative theory of Comey's behaviour that I find more credible. It involves a conflict between the NYC and DC branches of the FBI.

Rev Pesky

iyraste1313 wrote:
...the proof is in the pudding...there are facts out there as described here, whether they may come from so called discreditted sources or not...facts are facts!

Anonymous sources can neither be credited or discredited. Anonymous sources are anonymous, and thereofore nothing they say (if in fact they exist) can be checked.

That's usually why people discount anonymous sources.

NDPP

'Process Has Begun': FBI Scouring 650k Emails on Clinton Aide Husband's Laptop in Reopened Case

https://www.rt.com/usa/364774-clinton-weiner-abedin-emails/

"The probe is unlikely to wrap up before November 8."

 

 

josh

I'm still trying to figure out what charges should have been pressed.  There's no evidence that the email nonsense was anything more than negligence.  And no harm resulted.  Moreover, the FBI only makes recommendations.  Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute.

josh
Misfit Misfit's picture

Let's see, um...hypocracy? What else?

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what charges should have been pressed.  There's no evidence that the email nonsense was anything more than negligence.

That in itself is sufficient evidence to press charges in espionage cases. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden had to leave the country, and Chelsea Manning is in jail, all 3 of them on less grounds than what Clinton did.

josh wrote:
And no harm resulted.

Sending classified information through unsecure e-mail is dangerous. People have already admitted to hacking into her e-mail. You so much leave behind a briefcase marked "classifed" in a bar bathroom and you can get in serious trouble.

josh wrote:
Moreover, the FBI only makes recommendations.  Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute.

So the Democrats are in control of the Executive Branch of the government. The Democratic Party machine has decided that Clinton will be the nominee. So there's a criminal investigation of Clinton's e-mails, and the Justice Department won't charge Clinton. You really believe that Clinton facing no charges is a coincidence?

Aristotleded24

Cody87 wrote:
This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

It's not even that. Elections in the US are fixed, not necessarily in terms of who gets elected, but the public policies that are deemed "acceptable" are narrow in their scope and tend to benefit the corporate elite. Look at Obamacare, for example. It's essentially a public subsidy to health and pharmaceutical companies. Obama didn't even make the case for single payer or the public option, either one of which would have expanded coverage for medical care and been more affordable not only for the public but the government. That is one of the reasons elections in the US become so nasty and personal, because the competing factions need to find a way to distinguish themselves when their public policy proposals are so similar. And this bluster between Trump and Clinton is just that: it is theatre. They don't mean any of it. Trump is good friends with the Clintons, and will continue to be so after the election. So these Trump or Clinton supporters screaming and calling each other names can't see that they are being manipulated. No matter who wins, income inequality will continue to grow, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, more people will fall into despair, and the fear of terrorism will be used to justify foreign wars abroad and crackdowns on civic dissent at home.

Please, wake me up on November 9 when this nonsense is over.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I used to respect Julian Assange. But not anymore. All of this could have and should have been done during the primaries.The fact that they waited until the last week of the election tells me that Assange is not as interested in truth as causing much as chaos in the world.

Ecuador should throw him out and send his head on a platter to the US. He can look at it this way,he's made some new friends with the Republican Party. And I'm sure he'll have a good home on A&E.

iyraste1313

 

Please, wake me up on November 9 when this nonsense is over.

...I´m not so sure...the divisons of the power elite are becoming strident, out for blood, this closely contested election will not end on November 9th

from Mike Adams

It's not just that the Clinton crime family must be taken down, you see: It's that the entire democrat establishment should be disbanded or imprisoned. There isn't a high-level operative inside the DNC who isn't committing election fraud on a daily basis. The coordination and collusion, money laundering and pay-to-play "influence for sale" schemes are all illegal, yet they are the very foundation of the democrat establishment as it exists today.

Every one of these people needs to be arrested, indicted and imprisoned. This is the only way genuine democracy can be restored across America.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055821_Clinton_corruption_John_Podesta_crime_family.html#ixzz4Ohek0EAh

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
I used to respect Julian Assange. But not anymore. All of this could have and should have been done during the primaries.The fact that they waited until the last week of the election tells me that Assange is not as interested in truth as causing much as chaos in the world.

Ecuador should throw him out and send his head on a platter to the US. He can look at it this way,he's made some new friends with the Republican Party. And I'm sure he'll have a good home on A&E.

You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails, however he is only revealing things that Clinton herself is actually done. What Clinton has done is not his fault. Maybe if Clinton had been more transparent and honest and was a stronger general election candidate, Assange wouldn't have had anything to work with.

The only person responsible for Clinton possibly losing is Clinton. There was polling even when it was obvious that Clinton would win the Primaries that Sanders polled better against Trump and all the Republicans than Clinton did. This was public knowledge (even if the knowledge wasn't widely distributed) and if the public knew this, the Democratic Party knew this as well. The fact that they still rigged the process in Clinton's favour tells me that the Democratic Party isn't nearly as horrified by a Trump Presidency as everyone of us in this thread are.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what charges should have been pressed.  There's no evidence that the email nonsense was anything more than negligence.

That in itself is sufficient evidence to press charges in espionage cases. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden had to leave the country, and Chelsea Manning is in jail, all 3 of them on less grounds than what Clinton did.

josh wrote:
And no harm resulted.

Sending classified information through unsecure e-mail is dangerous. People have already admitted to hacking into her e-mail. You so much leave behind a briefcase marked "classifed" in a bar bathroom and you can get in serious trouble.

josh wrote:
Moreover, the FBI only makes recommendations.  Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute.

So the Democrats are in control of the Executive Branch of the government. The Democratic Party machine has decided that Clinton will be the nominee. So there's a criminal investigation of Clinton's e-mails, and the Justice Department won't charge Clinton. You really believe that Clinton facing no charges is a coincidence?


The cases you mention are totally not comparable. And she had top clearance. That something may be dangerous doesn't make it criminal.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
I used to respect Julian Assange. But not anymore. All of this could have and should have been done during the primaries.The fact that they waited until the last week of the election tells me that Assange is not as interested in truth as causing much as chaos in the world.

Ecuador should throw him out and send his head on a platter to the US. He can look at it this way,he's made some new friends with the Republican Party. And I'm sure he'll have a good home on A&E.

You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails, however he is only revealing things that Clinton herself is actually done. What Clinton has done is not his fault. Maybe if Clinton had been more transparent and honest and was a stronger general election candidate, Assange wouldn't have had anything to work with.

The only person responsible for Clinton possibly losing is Clinton. There was polling even when it was obvious that Clinton would win the Primaries that Sanders polled better against Trump and all the Republicans than Clinton did. This was public knowledge (even if the knowledge wasn't widely distributed) and if the public knew this, the Democratic Party knew this as well. The fact that they still rigged the process in Clinton's favour tells me that the Democratic Party isn't nearly as horrified by a Trump Presidency as everyone of us in this thread are.

I agree but you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Clinton is corrupt.Clinton is a war hawk. Clinton is a Conservative.All well documented and known by pretty much anyone.The Democratic Party is a disgrace.

But Assange could find endless incriminating information about Trump but I think he likes the idea of chaos.

You have a lot of people who hear Trump say this or that. But he's a Republican and will fall right into line if elected. The Repugs have a platform. People should read it because that's the only thing that will dictate policy,regardless of leader.

I wouldn't care who wins the election if it wasn't for the fact that when the elephant sneezes,we catch a cold. A Trump Presidency worries me a lot more than a Clinton Presidency.

I have to question the motivation of Wikileaks. It's a fair question.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails

Isn't that what people are primarily criticizing him for?

bekayne

iyraste1313 wrote:

 

Please, wake me up on November 9 when this nonsense is over.

...I´m not so sure...the divisons of the power elite are becoming strident, out for blood, this closely contested election will not end on November 9th

from Mike Adams

It's not just that the Clinton crime family must be taken down, you see: It's that the entire democrat establishment should be disbanded or imprisoned. There isn't a high-level operative inside the DNC who isn't committing election fraud on a daily basis. The coordination and collusion, money laundering and pay-to-play "influence for sale" schemes are all illegal, yet they are the very foundation of the democrat establishment as it exists today.

Every one of these people needs to be arrested, indicted and imprisoned. This is the only way genuine democracy can be restored across America.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055821_Clinton_corruption_John_Podesta_crime_family.html#ixzz4Ohek0EAh

Yeah, that's a real piece of sober "progressive" analysis:

This is your LAST CHANCE to take America back. If you allow the Clintons and the corrupt democrats to seize power through widespread fraud and theft, there will never be an open, fair and free election in America ever again. All opponents of Clinton will be imprisoned or executed. All conservative media outlets will be taken offline or silenced. The borders will be opened to a massive wave of illegal aliens from all across the world, and they will overrun and occupy America, destroying it from within while the bigoted, intolerant democrats turn the entire nation into a "sanctuary nation" where illegals have absolute immunity while patriots are executed or imprisoned by the millions.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

bekayne wrote:

 

This is your LAST CHANCE to take America back. If you allow the Clintons and the corrupt democrats to seize power through widespread fraud and theft, there will never be an open, fair and free election in America ever again. All opponents of Clinton will be imprisoned or executed. All conservative media outlets will be taken offline or silenced. The borders will be opened to a massive wave of illegal aliens from all across the world, and they will overrun and occupy America, destroying it from within while the bigoted, intolerant democrats turn the entire nation into a "sanctuary nation" where illegals have absolute immunity while patriots are executed or imprisoned by the millions.

I didn't notice this post. Was it really written from someone here at babble? If so,what the hell happened to this place?

6079_Smith_W

Keith Olbermann does not mince words about this one:

[youtube]f_bc12MVvSg[/youtube]

6079_Smith_W

dp

Misfit Misfit's picture

And Aristotled, what you wrote about the emails is a bunch of crap. Of all the tens of thousands of emails involved, all they found were three emails which were possibly mishandled. Whoopty doo! Even Colin Powell agrees that the email so-called scandal is way overblown. The real crime is in the criminal hacking of the computers, the stealing of private and confidential information, and then using it against the Deomcratic Party in order to sabotage their election chances. That is the real crime here.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails

Isn't that what people are primarily criticizing him for?

More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. They are the ones who got the e-mails for him to publish right during the elections. Why the Russians think Trump will be easyer on them is just nuts. Teh first time they try and fuck him over he's going to go nuts.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

bekayne wrote:

 

This is your LAST CHANCE to take America back. If you allow the Clintons and the corrupt democrats to seize power through widespread fraud and theft, there will never be an open, fair and free election in America ever again. All opponents of Clinton will be imprisoned or executed. All conservative media outlets will be taken offline or silenced. The borders will be opened to a massive wave of illegal aliens from all across the world, and they will overrun and occupy America, destroying it from within while the bigoted, intolerant democrats turn the entire nation into a "sanctuary nation" where illegals have absolute immunity while patriots are executed or imprisoned by the millions.

No, it's from the naturalnews-dot-com link. Mike Adams is an Internet quack who is terrified someone with a grasp of science will start regulating his ability to fleece the desperate by selling them snake oil.

I didn't notice this post. Was it really written from someone here at babble? If so,what the hell happened to this place?

Misfit Misfit's picture

I wish that people would properly source their quotes and not splice their texts into other people's quotes. The "this is your last chance" posting was from iyraste1313 and not bekayne.

Rev Pesky

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
...More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. They are the ones who got the e-mails for him to publish right during the elections. Why the Russians think Trump will be easyer on them is just nuts. Teh first time they try and fuck him over he's going to go nuts.

The Russians don't think Trump will be easier on them. The Russians (e.g. Vladimir Putin) is well aware that USA foreign policy will not change no matter who gets elected. USA foreign policy has not changed since the end of WW2, through a half-dozen each of Republican and Democratic presidents.

It is some sort of curious psychological quirk that makes people think Russia gives a shit who the president is. If the Russians really wanted to insert themselves into American politics, they would be trying to elect, or un-elect Senators.

Cody87

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. 

Has there been any credible evidence to suggest this is the case?

I mean DNCleaks was Russia, Wikileaks is Russia, Trump is Russia, O'Keefe is Russia, hell, I have literally seen claims online (not here, though it could be here too I haven't looked) that Comey is Russia. 

Is it actually Russia or is that just a useful scapegoat to distract from how unbelievably corrupt Clinton is?

The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
...More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. They are the ones who got the e-mails for him to publish right during the elections. Why the Russians think Trump will be easyer on them is just nuts. Teh first time they try and fuck him over he's going to go nuts.

The Russians don't think Trump will be easier on them. The Russians (e.g. Vladimir Putin) is well aware that USA foreign policy will not change no matter who gets elected. USA foreign policy has not changed since the end of WW2, through a half-dozen each of Republican and Democratic presidents.

It is some sort of curious psychological quirk that makes people think Russia gives a shit who the president is. If the Russians really wanted to insert themselves into American politics, they would be trying to elect, or un-elect Senators.

I'm forced to disagree here. I don't recall the Kremlin saying in previous elections that this or that president would lead to war. I don't think they're behind the leaks/hacks either, but they definitely prefer Trump.

Happy to discuss further after work ^.^

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

It is some sort of curious psychological quirk that makes people think Russia gives a shit who the president is. If the Russians really wanted to insert themselves into American politics, they would be trying to elect, or un-elect Senators.

I agree with you about that not being the goal, but as for the question of whether they interfere in foreign elections, yes they do.

They do it in France by funding Marine LePen's party. They are believed to be funding the racist Jobbik party in Hungary, and if they aren't they have certainly lent them credibility by inviting them to Crimea to oversee their sham referendum. Sam efor several other far right European parties.

They have done it in less direct ways in Britain and Germany by leaking fake news which has influenced elections:

Quote:

German officials say the controversy -- known as the “Lisa Affair” -- was ginned up by President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine to undermine Merkel in the run up to last month’s regional elections, which resulted in stinging losses for her party. The worry now in Berlin, Brussels and beyond is that with Britain poised for a historic referendum on European Union membership and national votes in France and Germany next year, Putin will intensify efforts to divide the 28-member bloc.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/from-rape-claim-to-bre...

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/strange-bedfellows-putin-and-...

Would American foreign policy change radically under Trump? Probably not, because he has isolated himself from his own party, and his supporters care more about other issues. But I think the goal is less to gain an ally than to destabilize. In that, the propaganda machines (and now it seems, perhaps the funders) have worked. 

Quote:

And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald...

I doubt the goal was to elect some sociopath as an ally, because how solid would that relationship really be? Much more useful to use the campaign to play on existing racism and hatred, and feelings that the media, the government, and the democratic process is rigged. The damage done by that is not going to go away on November 8.

This is another case of "useful idiots" IMO.

Of course most of this - and specifically Comey's action - would have gone the way it did even without covert help from Russia. The Republican Party has dedicated itself to undermining the executive branch for the past eight years. Longer, if you make the connections between their actions now and when Bill Clinton was president. And the militant anti-government movement has been growing for decades. Putin could have saved his money and things wouldn't have been that much different.

 

 

voice of the damned

Cody87 wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
...More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. They are the ones who got the e-mails for him to publish right during the elections. Why the Russians think Trump will be easyer on them is just nuts. Teh first time they try and fuck him over he's going to go nuts.

The Russians don't think Trump will be easier on them. The Russians (e.g. Vladimir Putin) is well aware that USA foreign policy will not change no matter who gets elected. USA foreign policy has not changed since the end of WW2, through a half-dozen each of Republican and Democratic presidents.

It is some sort of curious psychological quirk that makes people think Russia gives a shit who the president is. If the Russians really wanted to insert themselves into American politics, they would be trying to elect, or un-elect Senators.

I'm forced to disagree here. I don't recall the Kremlin saying in previous elections that this or that president would lead to war. I don't think they're behind the leaks/hacks either, but they definitely prefer Trump.

Happy to discuss further after work ^.^

Trump has threatened to pull the US out of NATO, and bring the troops home from South Korea, if US allies don't start coughing up their alleged "fair share" of funding. This makes him quite different from any other Democratic or Republican presidential aspirant since the start of the Cold War(with the partial exception of Carter, who for a time also wanted to get the troops out of Korea).

Even if Trump doesn't end up doing those things(and I agree, the odds are remote), the mere possibility that he might try would likely make him the prefered candidate of America's geopolitical rivals, since any amount of friction in the enemy camp is a good thing.

It would be like if, during the Cold War, an aspirant to the General-Secretariat of of the Soviet Communist Party had publically threatened to quit the Warsaw Pact and stop supporting Cuba: He'd likely be the favorite choice of the Americans, even if they knew the guy would probably be turfed from office after a few months.

Rev Pesky

What Vladimir Putin actually said about the USA elections.

U.S. fixation on Russia

Quote:
President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused American politicians of whipping up hysteria about a mythical Russian threat as a ploy to distract voters from their own failings in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election.

Putin, addressing an audience of foreign policy experts gathered in southern Russia, repeatedly lashed out at the Obama administration, saying it did not keep its word on Syria, did not honour deals, and had falsely accused Moscow of all manner of sins.

...Putin said he found it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought Moscow was capable of influencing the Nov. 8 election.

"Hysteria has been whipped up," said Putin. He said it was a ruse to cover up the fact  the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

..."It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? Is America a banana republic or what? America is a great power." 

Further from the same event, but a different source:

CTV News

Quote:
...Putin called the claim that Russia favours Republican contender Donald Trump in the race as "sheer nonsense" that has served as a campaign tool. "It's just an instrument of political struggle, a way of manipulating public opinion," he said.

The Russian leader added that while Trump may sound "extravagant," he was trying to reach out to people who are tired of elites, and "time will tell how efficient it is for him."

"We don't know how Trump or Clinton will behave, what they will or will not deliver," he said. "We feel more or less indifferent about it."

Putin added that it's not clear what stance the next U.S. president will take toward Russia, but added that Moscow welcomes campaign statements about normalizing ties.

"We will work with any president who will be elected by the American people," he said.

Speaking Wednesday evening at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that Washington has no doubts of direct Russian involvement in the hacking.

...Kerry said he has confronted Russian counterparts such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the matter.

"Their response is to demand the evidence and to ask for it," he said. "And my response to that is, 'Let's not be foolish here. You know what we're talking about."'

Or, in other words. there is no evidence.

In fact the one country we know for certain searches through emails is the USA. Or has everyone here forgotten Edward Snowden. When Congress was trying to investigate the NSA and their covert activities, they were threatened by their own agency.

Anyone remember James Clapper? The director of national intelligence who lied outright to Congress about the collection of data.

James Clapper lied to Congress

Quote:
A group of congressmen led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is pushing for President Obama to fire James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, who they say misled Congress about the extent of the NSA's surveillance activity.

The lawmakers called Clapper's position "incompatible" with the administration's effort to restore trust in the NSA, according to a letter sent to the White House Monday. The group is mostly Republican, but includes one Democrat, Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.).

"Director Clapper continues to hold his position despite lying to Congress under oath about the existence of bulk data collection programs in March 2013," the letter reads. "Asking Director Clapper, and other federal intelligence officials who misrepresented programs to Congress and the courts, to report to you on needed reforms ... is not a credible solution."

Unless, of course, it's actually the Russians who are running the various intelligence agencies in the USA. Now there's a conspriacy theory I like.

"You're a Russian puppet!"

"No, you're the puppet!"

"No, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!"

"You're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!"

"No, it's you who's the puppet! You're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!!"

And so on...

voice of the damned

Well, I'm not sure if denials from the alleged meddler are neccesstily the most credible bit of evidence. Countries don't normally admit publically that they are engaged in espionage against their rivals.

I'm agnostic about whether or not Russia is behind the anti-Clinton leaks, but unless you believe that everything coming out of a particular politican's mouth is the immaculate truth, it's not much of a defense to say "Well, Putin says it's not true, so that's that!"

And yeah, the US does all kinds of dodgy stuff. I'm not aware that anyone here has argued otherwise.

Rev Pesky

voice of the damned wrote:
...Even if Trump doesn't end up doing those things(and I agree, the odds are remote), the mere possibility that he might try would likely make him the prefered candidate of America's geopolitical rivals, since any amount of friction in the enemy camp is a good thing.

Pardon me, but are you saying there's no friction in the USA right now? 

As far as Trump and his NATO fantasy, he can't pull the USA out of NATO, the USA is NATO.

And as far as geopolitical rivals wanting 'friction' in the USA, I will beg to differ. What the geopolitical rivals want is stability, not friction.

Rev Pesky

voice of the damned wrote:
Well, I'm not sure if denials from the alleged meddler are neccesstily the most credible bit of evidence. Countries don't normally admit publically that they are engaged in espionage against their rivals.

 

I'm agnostic about whether or not Russia is behind the anti-Clinton leaks, but unless you believe that everything coming out of a particular politican's mouth is the immaculate truth, it's not much of a defense to say "Well, Putin says it's not true, so that's that!"

 

And yeah, the US does all kinds of dodgy stuff. I'm not aware that anyone here has argued otherwise.

I don't care about the credibility or otherwise of Vladimir Putin, but given the trajectory of USA foreign policy, what he says seems obvious to me. No president since the second world war has changed USA foreign policy, and anyone who thinks this election will change that is dreaming. One thing I know for sure about Putin is that he's not a dreamer.

The question is, what would Russia stand to gain by influencing the USA presidential election? My contention is they have nothing to gain one way or the other. I believe all of the evidence supports that supposition. So when Vladimir Putin says Russia is indifferent to the outcome, it's pretty easy to believe him.

And as I've already pointed out, if Russia really wanted to influence USA foreign policy, they'd be much better off trying to rig Senatorial elections. The Senate is where all of the foreign policy power is. But no one is suggesting Russia is trying to influence those elections. But if you're looking for motive, that would be the place to look.

The whole premise of the Russians trying to influence the USA election is predicated on the vast power of the president. But the USA president doesn't have vast power, and if there's one person in the world aware of that fact, it is Vladimir Putin.

So we don't have to ascribe great virtues of truth to Vladimir Putin, we only have to accept reality. When we do, we realize that what Putin says is most likely true.

voice of the damned

Cross-posted with Pesky's post-47.

voice of the damned

Cross-posted with Pesky's post-47.

voice of the damned

Quote:
Pardon me, but are you saying there's no friction in the USA right now?

I was referring to the western camp in general, not the internal USA.

And yes, "friction" was probably the wrong word(though, contrary to the babble idea that every single person in a NATO country wants the US out, I'm pretty sure you'd see quite a bit of panic among both the populace and the governments if a President Trump were actually to make good on his promise.) Basically, between a candiate who makes staements like this...

“If Russia wants to spend millions of dollars a day dropping bombs on ISIS, I’m OK with that,” he said, referring to the Islamic State terror group. “Some people don’t like it. They say ‘No, no, that’s our job.’ It’s not our job. Let Russia… if they want to do that, I’m all for it.”

“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the Third World War with Russia.”

"Sending the Washington establishment into shock once again, Trump dismissed the idea that the US benefited from its military deployments all over the planet. “I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation.”

...and the blatant interventionism advocated by Clinto etc, I don't think it's too psychedelic a summation to think that Putin might actually prefer Trump.

http://tinyurl.com/jsvd3on

Pages