TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 If they convince EC how to vote its a coup? Yes, if the CIA interferes with the legitimate transition of power it's an attempted coup. What FBI did was wrong, very wrong, but not sure I'd call it a coup What the FBI did was investigate possible crimes, which is within it's purview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, if the CIA interferes with the legitimate transition of power it's an attempted coup. What the FBI did was investigate possible crimes, which is within it's purview. Well, not hard to see where you are coming from! It's only bad if it helps Dems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 I know, its about winning the vote of the EC. Which Hillary could still do, actually. All legal Anything is possible. Hell, Bernie has as much of a chance as winning the presidency as LIAR does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Well, not hard to see where you are coming from! It's only bad if it helps Dems Only bad if it results in the end of America's peaceful transition of legitimate government to legitimate government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 Only bad if it results in the end of America's peaceful transition of legitimate government to legitimate government. Let's hope it does not come to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Let's hope it does not come to that That's the point. That's exactly what the CIA is fermenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 That's the point. That's exactly what the CIA is fermenting. I'd say it started with FBI. Totally irresponsible, corrupt and obviously a partisan hit job. The investigation is crap, going after the perv Weiner was only because he was married to Clinton aide. The FBI would not have the time to go after every online perv it was in business to do that. Hit job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) I'd say it started with FBI. Totally irresponsible, corrupt and obviously a partisan hit job. The investigation is crap, going after the perv Weiner was only because he was married to Clinton aide. The FBI would not have the time to go after every online perv it was in business to do that. Hit job So your argument is that the CIA, who doesn't have the infrastructure to determine if cyber crimes have been committed, is claiming not only that cyber crimes have been committed, but they have been committed exclusively against the Democratic Party, for the purpose of influencing the election. This argument asks us to accept the following premises without evidence: 1) The Wikileaks documents leaked were provided by the Russians. (a claim Wikileaks denies) 2) Only the Democratic Party was hacked, and that the Republican party was either not attempted to be hacked, or not successfully hacked. OR 3) Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were hacked, but only the Democratic Party's dirty laundry was aired, without making way for the possibility that there was no damning information located on Republican Party servers. (the Republican Party claims it was not hacked, while the CIA makes specific charges that it was) 4) That James Clapper, a political appointee of the current President, who perjured himself before Congress, has no political motivations for his claims. 5) That John Brennan, a political appointee of the current President, who has voted for Communist Party candidates, and was caught hacking into US government databases in the past, has no political motivations for his claims. 6) That the CIA, who does not have the infrastructure to investigate cyber crimes, or mandate to pursue charges for cyber crimes; has both investigated cyber crimes and is legitimately prescribing actions related to alleged cyber crimes. 7) That the CIA, a highly politicized agency, whose major role in US operations has been to illigitimize, destabilize, topple, and overthrow governments isn't attempting to do exactly that. To me, that is an absurd ask. The second leg of your argument is that the FBI should not have followed it's clear mandate to investigate clear evidence of criminal activity because it was politically inconvenient for Democrats. What then, is the purpose of the FBI if not to investigate such activity? The United States is currently under the strains of an attempted bloodless coup to overthrow the government-elect. This should be the scariest moment of your lives. Edited December 13, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 I'd say it started with FBI. Totally irresponsible, corrupt and obviously a partisan hit job. The investigation is crap, going after the perv Weiner was only because he was married to Clinton aide. The FBI would not have the time to go after every online perv it was in business to do that. Hit job It's not fair to say it's "the FBI" or "the CIA" when neither agency are fully supporting either position. It's factions within each agency that are warring w one another and that war is spilling out into the press through each one's chosen mouth piece. Right now factions of CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, and DHS (possible more) are in the middle of a tit for tat battle, each motivated by something different (some anti hrc folks, a lot of neocon and neo liberal Hawks who are bitter about not getting to execute their plans in Syria and Moscow, and some right wingers who want to be the head dog in Trumps America). Russia should be investigated but as was pointed out they didn't "hack" the election. They certainly have been trying to influence it, of course we do the same every day (and even worse in places), but they didn't alter votes as the neo mccarthyites are trying to allude to. People need to take more responsibility for themselves. In terms of which sources they trust, read, and rely upon. The Russian influence in this election is easy to thwart without censorship or attacking free speech if the people took the time to educate themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 I'd say it started with FBI. Totally irresponsible, corrupt and obviously a partisan hit job. The investigation is crap, going after the perv Weiner was only because he was married to Clinton aide. The FBI would not have the time to go after every online perv it was in business to do that. Hit job Weiner was sexting a minor, across state lines. That is WELL within the FBI's purview. You idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 So your argument is that the CIA, who doesn't have the infrastructure to determine if cyber crimes have been committed, is claiming not only that cyber crimes have been committed, but they have been committed exclusively against the Democratic Party, for the purpose of influencing the election. This argument asks us to accept the following premises without evidence: 1) The Wikileaks documents leaked were provided by the Russians. (a claim Wikileaks denies) 2) Only the Democratic Party was hacked, and that the Republican party was either not attempted to be hacked, or not successfully hacked. OR 3) Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were hacked, but only the Democratic Party's dirty laundry was aired, without making way for the possibility that there was no damning information located on Republican Party servers. (the Republican Party claims it was not hacked, while the CIA makes specific charges that it was) 4) That James Clapper, a political appointee of the current President, who perjured himself before Congress, has no political motivations for his claims. 5) That John Brennan, a political appointee of the current President, who has voted for Communist Party candidates, and was caught hacking into US government databases in the past, has no political motivations for his claims. 6) That the CIA, who does not have the infrastructure to investigate cyber crimes, or mandate to pursue charges for cyber crimes; has both investigated cyber crimes and is legitimately prescribing actions related to alleged cyber crimes. 7) That the CIA, a highly politicized agency, whose major role in US operations has been to illigitimize, destabilize, topple, and overthrow governments isn't attempting to do exactly that. To me, that is an absurd ask. The second leg of your argument is that the FBI should not have followed it's clear mandate to investigate clear evidence of criminal activity because it was politically inconvenient for Democrats. What then, is the purpose of the FBI if not to investigate such activity? The United States is currently under the strains of an attempted bloodless coup to overthrow the government-elect. This should be the scariest moment of your lives. If the FBI followed every perv that sent a text they would never investigate anything else. That they choose to pick on the husband of Clinton's aide is obvious picking a case for political reasons. If I was to go farther, I'd mention he never even met the girl, so he could say he didn't even know if she was a real girl, young or old, etc. And I'm sure CIA has the ability to investigate cyber crimes Weiner was sexting a minor, across state lines. That is WELL within the FBI's purview. You idiot. No one is denying they CAN, but why did they choose to investigate this case? Political motivation is the reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 If the FBI followed every perv that sent a text they would never investigate anything else. That they choose to pick on the husband of Clinton's aide is obvious picking a case for political reasons. If I was to go farther, I'd mention he never even met the girl, so he could say he didn't even know if she was a real girl, young or old, etc. And I'm sure CIA has the ability to investigate cyber crimes No one is denying they CAN, but why did they choose to investigate this case? Political motivation is the reason The CIA doesn't investigate crimes. They're not a law enforcement body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 It's not fair to say it's "the FBI" or "the CIA" when neither agency are fully supporting either position. It's factions within each agency that are warring w one another and that war is spilling out into the press through each one's chosen mouth piece. Right now factions of CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, and DHS (possible more) are in the middle of a tit for tat battle, each motivated by something different (some anti hrc folks, a lot of neocon and neo liberal Hawks who are bitter about not getting to execute their plans in Syria and Moscow, and some right wingers who want to be the head dog in Trumps America). Russia should be investigated but as was pointed out they didn't "hack" the election. They certainly have been trying to influence it, of course we do the same every day (and even worse in places), but they didn't alter votes as the neo mccarthyites are trying to allude to. People need to take more responsibility for themselves. In terms of which sources they trust, read, and rely upon. The Russian influence in this election is easy to thwart without censorship or attacking free speech if the people took the time to educate themselves. Sure, but the head of the FBI did listen to the faction in it that was out to get Clinton, he had worked on a previous fruitless Clinton witch hunt and was obviously out to get her. The CIA doesn't investigate crimes. They're not a law enforcement body. Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Sure, but the head of the FBI did listen to the faction in it that was out to get Clinton, he had worked on a previous fruitless Clinton witch hunt and was obviously out to get her. Well finally. A government employee that succeeded in doing what it set out to do. Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Sure, but the head of the FBI did listen to the faction in it that was out to get Clinton, he had worked on a previous fruitless Clinton witch hunt and was obviously out to get her. James Comey, who went out of his way to not recommend indictment, even though he concluded that anyone else would/should have been indicted with the same evidence, was anything but a shill for Republicans. The FBI was working well within it's purview, and were Comey trying to harm Clinton's campaign, he already stated that he had enough evidence to recommend indicting prior to anything related to Anthony Weiner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 James Comey, who went out of his way to not recommend indictment, even though he concluded that anyone else would/should have been indicted with the same evidence, was anything but a shill for Republicans. The FBI was working well within it's purview, and were Comey trying to harm Clinton's campaign, he already stated that he had enough evidence to recommend indicting prior to anything related to Anthony Weiner. The hypothesis that Comey had a significant impact on the election conveniently ignores the fact that an ACA premium rate hike was announced three days prior to Comey's announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 The hypothesis that Comey had a significant impact on the election conveniently ignores the fact that an ACA premium rate hike was announced three days prior to Comey's announcement. It does, but that's beside my point. The point I was making was that if Comey had any political inclination to do damage to Clinton, he could have done so. The fact that he didn't makes claims about the second round of investigations meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 James Comey, who went out of his way to not recommend indictment, even though he concluded that anyone else would/should have been indicted with the same evidence, was anything but a shill for Republicans. The FBI was working well within it's purview, and were Comey trying to harm Clinton's campaign, he already stated that he had enough evidence to recommend indicting prior to anything related to Anthony Weiner. Oh right! Anyone else would have been inducted, ya whatever It does, but that's beside my point. The point I was making was that if Comey had any political inclination to do damage to Clinton, he could have done so. The fact that he didn't makes claims about the second round of investigations meaningless. That he could have ran the check of "evidence" that found nothing and not said anything publicly but didn't is all you need to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 That he could have ran the check of "evidence" that found nothing and not said anything publicly but didn't is all you need to know Because who gives a !@#$ about what Congress wants, anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts