RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . .

RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 5:18:18 PM)
FBI Boss panicked by Trump repeatedly calling election rigged. J. Edgar would never have made such a blatant public blunder . . he even had the decency to wear his mommy's dress in private. C'mon, man! Director of the FBI just don't do shit like that. Comey should tender his resignation. His career is down the shithole of serious distrust.

Awareness -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 8:03:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A bunch of women from different years different countries and different stories dont deserve to be heard because you dont like women who didnt come forward 20-30 years ago. Stop looking in the mirror. No. They do not. There is no entitlement for someone telling an outrageous story to be believed. None. Nada. Zero. And for the record, I have never even remotely dreamed of raping a woman. You calling me a rapist is an example of the utter moral bankruptcy and dishonesty of the left. You reveal yourself as the vile, bile-spouting man-hating piece of shit that you are.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 8:13:36 PM)
no??? Its called freedom of speech. I know you dont like it , but there it is. I have never accused you of being a rapist. simple.

Awareness -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 8:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic no??? Its called freedom of speech. I know you dont like it , but there it is. I have never accused you of being a rapist. simple. Accusing me of looking in the mirror when I question extremely suspicious claims of sexual assault is calling me a rapist by implication. Christ Lucy, at least have the guts to own your shitty behaviour.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 9:50:49 PM)
I did not call you a rapist. I did not accuse you of being a rapist. I do not think you are a rapist. I do not know what your sexual history is. I dont care to know. Your posts are a different matter. Assault, sexual assault and rape, are different things. You might not think it matters but it does. Your disregard for women was the point. Your own words were my point.

FLTPE -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/29/2016 9:55:35 PM)
Absolutely. President Obama should give the guy 12 hours to bring to the Oval Office actual new evidence of criminality or release of classified information by the candidate, and if Comey doesn't show up or can't produce any, he should be fired on the spot for willfully violating long-standing DOJ pre-election procedures, disobeying the Attorney General and improperly meddling in an ongoing federal election.

heavyblinker -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 8:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Government agency did not bring up any false misinformation. Her emails are being investigated again! That's all they are saying. Which is the truth. You're missing the point. Hillary WANTS them to finish the investigation and find the truth... she is currently demanding that they speed it up and get it finished because she is confident that nothing incriminating will be found. You RWNJs were so upset when 12 women accused Trump of sexual assault or whatever because the timing seemed suspicious and now this is all about 'justice being served'? Come on. If you like it when Hillary suffers/looks bad because of a rational reason other than 'she's not on my team', then say that... but don't pretend that this is anything but a partisan political move.

Baldrick -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 8:04:05 AM)
The investigation was never actually closed....

KenDckey -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 8:28:22 AM)
To me I see one or more scenarios being played out. 1 - It could be tampering with the election. I can understand that point of view althought don't necessarily agree since the report was sent to Congress. 2 - It could be CYA. If he didn't inform Congress, he might be held in contempt of congress for possibly covering up an incomplete investigation or whatever (not otherwise specified) 3 - It could be whistleblowing. 4 - It could be striking out against POTUS. Make Hilary look bad then POTUS looks bad for supporting her (pure speculation) 5 - It could be in defiance of Lynch for not prosecuting Hilary and applying pressure for him to clear her first time around (more speculation) 6 - It could be for reasons totally unknown or unspecified

BamaD -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 8:32:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey To me I see one or more scenarios being played out. 1 - It could be tampering with the election. I can understand that point of view althought don't necessarily agree since the report was sent to Congress. 2 - It could be CYA. If he didn't inform Congress, he might be held in contempt of congress for possibly covering up an incomplete investigation or whatever (not otherwise specified) 3 - It could be whistleblowing. 4 - It could be striking out against POTUS. Make Hilary look bad then POTUS looks bad for supporting her (pure speculation) 5 - It could be in defiance of Lynch for not prosecuting Hilary and applying pressure for him to clear her first time around (more speculation) 6 - It could be for reasons totally unknown or unspecified If he is trying to affect the election, wouldn't he, after explaining in detail all of the laws Hillary had broken, still advised against prosecution, if he was out to get her wouldn't he have tried to prosecute her then?

heavyblinker -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 8:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey To me I see one or more scenarios being played out. 1 - It could be tampering with the election. I can understand that point of view althought don't necessarily agree since the report was sent to Congress. 2 - It could be CYA. If he didn't inform Congress, he might be held in contempt of congress for possibly covering up an incomplete investigation or whatever (not otherwise specified) 3 - It could be whistleblowing. 4 - It could be striking out against POTUS. Make Hilary look bad then POTUS looks bad for supporting her (pure speculation) 5 - It could be in defiance of Lynch for not prosecuting Hilary and applying pressure for him to clear her first time around (more speculation) 6 - It could be for reasons totally unknown or unspecified If he is trying to affect the election, wouldn't he, after explaining in detail all of the laws Hillary had broken, still advised against prosecution, if he was out to get her wouldn't he have tried to prosecute her then? At that point, he was forced to concede that she had been careless but had broken no laws. This is because the FBI had considered the facts and had come to that conclusion. This is different-- he doesn't have all of the facts, there has been no consideration, he has said nothing about the emails in question, and hasn't revealed WHEN he will know... and yet feels the need to alert ONLY the GOP simply that he is looking into it again. Hillary herself has demanded they release everything they have: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/28/october_surprise_revives_clinton_email_controversy_132194.html “It’s imperative that the [FBI] explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay ... Let’s get it out.” Honestly, Comey is the only one who looks bad here... and Hillary seems more like a victim. He's using an unrelated investigation involving very very weakly linked interactions to create a scandal where none actually exists. The GOP have a terrible candidate and they know it... so they're pulling this shit.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 9:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Baldrick The investigation was never actually closed.... Actually, as per Comey's testimony to congress, he considered it closed (because his boss told him to close it). When the Carlos Danger investigation (which wasn't closed) turned up information which may be relevant to the anti-Christ investigation, the New York FBI field office contacted The DC office to let them know they had some new stuff. Comey had stated absolutely that the Hillary investigation was closed, under oath in front of congress. When it was determined that there might be some new information, he was legally obligated to tell congress that he needed to "update his testimony". If he hadn't, he would have been facing perjury/contempt of congress charges. Apparently, he'll play ball with Lynch and the failure-in-chief, but he's not going to jail for the scumbags. Michael

BamaD -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 9:45:33 AM)
FR If Hillary broke no law why is there a General going to jail for doing less?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 10:36:15 AM)
I don't remember which network had this, but the report is the e-mails in question reside in a file labeled "Life Insurance" on the un-named device. That's interesting. Life Insurance for whom? Huma? Anthony? Did one of them think their lives were literally in danger or was it political Life Insurance? Michael

heavyblinker -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 10:50:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't remember which network had this, but the report is the e-mails in question reside in a file labeled "Life Insurance" on the un-named device. That's interesting. Life Insurance for whom? Huma? Anthony? Did one of them think their lives were literally in danger or was it political Life Insurance? Maybe it was because she had another folder named 'Top Secret Evidence that will completely destroy Hillary Clinton, who is the most evil serial killer criminal in history' and the computer wouldn't let her call that folder by the same name.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 10:52:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't remember which network had this, but the report is the e-mails in question reside in a file labeled "Life Insurance" on the un-named device. That's interesting. Life Insurance for whom? Huma? Anthony? Did one of them think their lives were literally in danger or was it political Life Insurance? Maybe it was because she had another folder named 'Top Secret Evidence that will completely destroy Hillary Clinton, who is the most evil serial killer criminal in history' and the computer wouldn't let her call that folder by the same name. just as likely as the conspiracists

Awareness -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 10:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I don't remember which network had this, but the report is the e-mails in question reside in a file labeled "Life Insurance" on the un-named device. That's interesting. Life Insurance for whom? Huma? Anthony? Did one of them think their lives were literally in danger or was it political Life Insurance? Michael Well WikiLeaks is convinced the Clinton campaign had one of their informants iced. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. Why do you think Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the country?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 11:32:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Well WikiLeaks is convinced the Clinton campaign had one of their informants iced. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. Why do you think Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the country? I don't know how much faith I want to put into Wikileaks, exactly, but when I heard about the name of the file, my mind went a few different ways: If it was "political life insurance", I get it. If it was a literal usage, it suggests a few things: One of them (Huma or Carlos/Anthony) had reason to believe that they were involved with some people who would end their lives. That tells me that one of them might literally know where at least one "body is buried". That brings this whole disgusting, sordid, mess to an entirely new level. I don't put murder beyond the aspirations of the anti-Christ. I believe that line has already been crossed, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who's scared for their very lives in the cross hairs of the FBI who might then become willing to say those "magic words" (That's pronounced: "Witness Protection" for those of you in Poughkeepsie)? Michael

heavyblinker -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 12:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If it was "political life insurance", I get it. If it was a literal usage, it suggests a few things: One of them (Huma or Carlos/Anthony) had reason to believe that they were involved with some people who would end their lives. That tells me that one of them might literally know where at least one "body is buried". That brings this whole disgusting, sordid, mess to an entirely new level. I don't put murder beyond the aspirations of the anti-Christ. I believe that line has already been crossed, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who's scared for their very lives in the cross hairs of the FBI who might then become willing to say those "magic words" (That's pronounced: "Witness Protection" for those of you in Poughkeepsie)? Also, aliens.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Fire the FBI Boss . . . (10/30/2016 12:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Well WikiLeaks is convinced the Clinton campaign had one of their informants iced. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. Why do you think Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the country? I don't know how much faith I want to put into Wikileaks, exactly, but when I heard about the name of the file, my mind went a few different ways: If it was "political life insurance", I get it. If it was a literal usage, it suggests a few things: One of them (Huma or Carlos/Anthony) had reason to believe that they were involved with some people who would end their lives. That tells me that one of them might literally know where at least one "body is buried". That brings this whole disgusting, sordid, mess to an entirely new level. I don't put murder beyond the aspirations of the anti-Christ. I believe that line has already been crossed, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who's scared for their very lives in the cross hairs of the FBI who might then become willing to say those "magic words" (That's pronounced: "Witness Protection" for those of you in Poughkeepsie)? Michael I share every bit of your skepticism - and more - about Wikileaks, particularly where Assange is concerned. I keep wondering what the people on here would say if Edward Snowden was the one "leaking" all this hacked material about Clinton. Or would the outrage be the same if these were hacked emails from Trump's campaign? More to the point, perhaps we should wait to see what these emails actually contain before drawing conclusions, yes?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0546875