6 ms·

Unfortunately, none of this is actually surprising. When was the last time such crime was actually prosecuted? It is very hard to have any trust in the legal sy

Unfortunately, none of this is actually surprising. When was the last time such crime was actually prosecuted? It is very hard to have any trust in the legal system when there are many that curtail ot through sheer influence.

jonhohle 3y ago
It’s unfortunate that it’s not surprising and even more so that administrations feel like this is so accepted that (at best) nothing need be done and (at worst) it can be used to their advantage. Even when the minimal executive action of firing those involved is taken (for example, firing Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinesmith) the media will attack the enforcers and give comfort to the perpetrators. It’s clown world.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  Can you remind me again why Comey was fired? What rule did he fall afoul of? I was always under the impression that the FBI is an incredibly conservative institution in every sense of the word, so it's not surprising how the biases play out. What is strange is when they get caught up in intra-conservative-world politics.
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    "And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”" Trump told the world that he fired Comey for opening what has now been shown by the IG and SC Durham after a 4 year investigation to be properly predicated, if flawed. Firing Comey was an attempt by Trump to avoid accountability for what he and his campaign did, along with destruction of evidence, lying under oath, and 11 other counts of obstruction of justice by Trump identified by SC Robert Muller. It turns out Trump's campaign did meet with Russians and lied about it; Trump did had business in Russia he lied about; his campaign manager did meet with a Russian spy to discuss handing over dirt on his opponent; Russians did hack the Democrats and distribute the data; Trump did ask them publicly to hack his opponent in exchange for relaxed sanctions; and his campaign was knowingly sharing data with a Russian intelligence officer. So of course an investigation was opened into his campaign and their ties to Russia.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      In what way was it properly predicated? He was briefed by the CIA that it was a campaign stunt.
      - ModernMech 3y ago
        You'll have to be more specific about what part of my comment you're referring to as "it". Because obviously the investigation wasn't a campaign stunt. And if you want to read about how the investigation was properly predicated, here's the IG report: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf The existence and thoroughness of this report begs the question as to why the Durham investigation was ever needed in the first place.
        jonhohle 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        This is not what the IG and Durham found, read the linked report.
        zaroth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        It was not a hoax that Paul Manafort was caught exchanging campaign data with an Russian intelligence officer by the Senate Intel Committee. It wasn't a hoax that he met with a Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss an exchange of dirt for relaxed sanctions. It wasn't a hoax that Trump's campaign had a hundred+ contacts with Russians but lied saying they didn't have any, including under oath. It wasn't a hoax that Trump and Trump's lawyer lied when they said there were no deals in Russia, when in fact Trump had an in-progress "Trump Tower Moscow" deal with a planned penthouse dedicated to Putin. These are not "hoaxes", but facts discovered through investigation and detailed extensively in at least 9 reports. In total, they show the Russians hacked the Democrats to help the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign welcomed the help, the campaign publicly asked Russia for the help, and when the help came from Russia, the campaign used the help to their advantage, and they hoped for more. Then when the investigation into said help happened, they obstructed it, tried to shut it down, and called it a "hoax", which you repeat here. Everything I've said is supported by hundreds of pages of reports: The Mueller report, the Senate Intel Committee report on the 2016 election, the IG report, and yes even the Durham report corroborates what I'm saying. Taken in total, it's impossible to conclude these reports support the theory that Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and the Trump campaign's welcoming and support of that interference was a hoax. > Comey brought incredible disgrace to the FBI thru his actions and leadership during the “investigation”. No argument there.
javajosh 3y ago
Nowhere does it say that a crime must be surprising in order for the perpetrator(s) to be prosecuted.

jonhohle 3y ago

It’s unfortunate that it’s not surprising and even more so that administrations feel like this is so accepted that (at best) nothing need be done and (at worst) it can be used to their advantage. Even when the minimal executive action of firing those involved is taken (for example, firing Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinesmith) the media will attack the enforcers and give comfort to the perpetrators. It’s clown world.

silverquiet 3y ago
Can you remind me again why Comey was fired? What rule did he fall afoul of? I was always under the impression that the FBI is an incredibly conservative institution in every sense of the word, so it's not surprising how the biases play out. What is strange is when they get caught up in intra-conservative-world politics.
- ModernMech 3y ago
  "And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”" Trump told the world that he fired Comey for opening what has now been shown by the IG and SC Durham after a 4 year investigation to be properly predicated, if flawed. Firing Comey was an attempt by Trump to avoid accountability for what he and his campaign did, along with destruction of evidence, lying under oath, and 11 other counts of obstruction of justice by Trump identified by SC Robert Muller. It turns out Trump's campaign did meet with Russians and lied about it; Trump did had business in Russia he lied about; his campaign manager did meet with a Russian spy to discuss handing over dirt on his opponent; Russians did hack the Democrats and distribute the data; Trump did ask them publicly to hack his opponent in exchange for relaxed sanctions; and his campaign was knowingly sharing data with a Russian intelligence officer. So of course an investigation was opened into his campaign and their ties to Russia.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    In what way was it properly predicated? He was briefed by the CIA that it was a campaign stunt.
    - ModernMech 3y ago
      You'll have to be more specific about what part of my comment you're referring to as "it". Because obviously the investigation wasn't a campaign stunt. And if you want to read about how the investigation was properly predicated, here's the IG report: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf The existence and thoroughness of this report begs the question as to why the Durham investigation was ever needed in the first place.
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        This is not what the IG and Durham found, read the linked report.
        zaroth 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ModernMech 3y ago
        It was not a hoax that Paul Manafort was caught exchanging campaign data with an Russian intelligence officer by the Senate Intel Committee. It wasn't a hoax that he met with a Russian spy at Trump's home to discuss an exchange of dirt for relaxed sanctions. It wasn't a hoax that Trump's campaign had a hundred+ contacts with Russians but lied saying they didn't have any, including under oath. It wasn't a hoax that Trump and Trump's lawyer lied when they said there were no deals in Russia, when in fact Trump had an in-progress "Trump Tower Moscow" deal with a planned penthouse dedicated to Putin. These are not "hoaxes", but facts discovered through investigation and detailed extensively in at least 9 reports. In total, they show the Russians hacked the Democrats to help the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign welcomed the help, the campaign publicly asked Russia for the help, and when the help came from Russia, the campaign used the help to their advantage, and they hoped for more. Then when the investigation into said help happened, they obstructed it, tried to shut it down, and called it a "hoax", which you repeat here. Everything I've said is supported by hundreds of pages of reports: The Mueller report, the Senate Intel Committee report on the 2016 election, the IG report, and yes even the Durham report corroborates what I'm saying. Taken in total, it's impossible to conclude these reports support the theory that Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, and the Trump campaign's welcoming and support of that interference was a hoax. > Comey brought incredible disgrace to the FBI thru his actions and leadership during the “investigation”. No argument there.

javajosh 3y ago

Nowhere does it say that a crime must be surprising in order for the perpetrator(s) to be prosecuted.