Abolish the FBI - WSJ

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  86 comments

By:   Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. (WSJ)

Abolish the FBI - WSJ
How much more do we need to learn about 2016 to realize the agency is a disaster?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



In ignoring the latest John Durham indictment, most of the media and official Washington are ignoring the elephant between its lines: the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Durham, the special counsel appointed to investigate the government's handling of the Russia collusion mess, levels a single criminal charge against Michael Sussmann, then a lawyer for the Democrat-linked firm Perkins Coie. In delivering to the FBI fanciful evidence of Trump-Russia collusion a few weeks before the 2016 election, Mr. Sussmann is alleged to have lied to the FBI's chief lawyer, James Baker, claiming he was acting on his own behalf and not as a paid agent of the Clinton campaign.

Already you might be rolling your eyes. Mr. Durham provides ample reason in his own indictment for why the FBI would have known exactly whom Mr. Sussmann was working for. If Mr. Sussmann didn’t lie at the time, Mr. Baker may have lied since about what transpired between him and Mr. Sussmann.

Either way, we are free to suspect the FBI would have found it useful to be protected from inconvenient knowledge about the Clinton campaign’s role. The same FBI then was busy ignoring the political antecedents of the Steele dossier, also  financed  by Mr. Sussmann’s law firm on behalf of the Clinton campaign, information that the FBI would shortly withhold from a surveillance court in pursuit of a warrant to spy on Trump pilot fish Carter Page.

Mr. Durham, in describing the Sept. 19, 2016, meeting with Mr. Baker, suggests that a properly informed FBI might have thought twice before opening an investigation into Mr. Sussmann’s phony story about the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. This is a way also of saying the FBI might have found it harder to proceed without the political deniability that Mr. Sussmann’s alleged statement provided.

At this late date, none of this can be consumed without recognizing that the FBI was already hip-deep in the 2016 election. It began a few weeks earlier with Director James Comey’s insubordinate, improper (according to the Justice Department’s own inspector general) intervention in the Hillary email case. We learned much later that Mr. Comey justified this unprecedented action by referring to secret Russian “intelligence” that his FBI colleagues considered a red herring and possible Russian disinformation. Your eyes should really be rolling now.

Mr. Comey thereupon created the preposterous jam for himself when new information surfaced in the Hillary case, which led him to reopen the case shortly before Election Day and likely tipped the race to Mr. Trump. Of course the “new information” turned out to be a nothingburger. Worse, the information had been sitting unnoticed in the FBI’s hands for weeks.

These antic actions, along with the subsequent FBI leakfest aimed at undermining the president it just helped to elect, might be written off as a singular consequence of Mr. Comey’s overweened sense of importance.

But this doesn’t explain the FBI’s top counterintelligence deputy, Peter Strzok, engaging in compromising political banter on an FBI network while playing a central role in the FBI’s most politically sensitive investigations. It doesn’t explain FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith’s criminal act of falsifying agency submissions to the surveillance court.

Ask yourself: In what way, in anyone’s memory,  has  the FBI covered itself in glory? The Larry Nassar case, in which it failed to pursue a serial abuser of teenage gymnasts? The Noor Salman case, in which it trumped up a failed prosecution of the innocent and abused wife of the Orlando nightclub shooter? The Hatfill case, in which it attempted to railroad an innocent scientist over the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Ironically, Hollywood is now the FBI’s biggest devotee because the agency’s screw-ups are fodder for its best movies. The FBI’s role in the assassination of Black Panther Fred Hampton was the subject of “Judas and the Black Messiah.” Its persecution of an innocent security guard in the Atlanta Olympics bombing was the theme of “ Richard Jewell. ” Its cosseting of the criminal psychopath Whitey Bulger was a central pillar of the Johnny Depp film “Black Mass.”

The FBI’s last extended run of good publicity, aimed at helping live down the smell of J. Edgar Hoover, came more than 50 years ago thanks to Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and his weekly show on ABC, “The F.B.I.,” which went off the air in 1974.

By now, after its performance in the 2016 election, the evidence might seem conclusive that the agency is a failed experiment, however able and dedicated many of its agents.

Its culture at the top seems incapable of using the powers entrusted to it with discretion and good judgment or at least without reliable expectation of embarrassment. The agency should be scrapped and something new built to replace it. One possibility is a national investigative corps that would be more directly answerable to the 93 U.S. attorneys who are charged with enforcing federal law in the 50 states.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

We may want to hold off on abolishing what was clearly a politicized FBI.

A ray of hope came from Christopher Wray the FBI director, the other day:

"Antifa is a real thing. It's not a group or an organization. It's a movement, or an ideology may be one way of thinking of it," Wray said. "And we have quite a number -- and I've said this quite consistently since my first time appearing before this committee -- we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists and some of those individuals self-identify with Antifa."

Wray's words were in response to Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., who claimed prominent Democrats have called Antifa a "fantasy." In July, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., had dismissed the idea of Antifa violence in Portland as "a myth that's being spread only in Washington, D.C."



I'm willing to cut Wray some slack after that statement.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
2  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

called Antifa a "fantasy."

They aren't a fantasy.  They are a wet dream gone wrong.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    3 weeks ago

They're still a reality

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3  Hal A. Lujah    3 weeks ago

Abolish the FBI … the chant of all illegal arms dealers, human traffickers, and white collar criminals everywhere!

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
3.1  evilgenius  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3    3 weeks ago

That pretty much sums up Trump's sycophantic base. No wonder they want it gone.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    3 weeks ago

trumpster's need to discredit the FBI quickly before the orange menace has to face the music.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
3.1.2  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    3 weeks ago
illegal arms dealers, human traffickers That pretty much sums up Trump's sycophantic base. 

Oh please.... show me the links for this ridiculous statement. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  gooseisback @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Lol.  Maybe he was referring to the white collar criminal part of my comment more than the arms dealing and human trafficking part … you know, the part you intentionally did not quote.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
3.1.4  gooseisback  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Maybe he was referring

It's your post,  don't you know what you're talking about!.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

Mr. Hoover started the "attack" agency - Nixon saw it for what it was and nobody even thought they would become this political.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 weeks ago

Speaking of Nixon, wasn't it a disgruntled FBI official who brought him down?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

no, it was tricky dick's criminal acts during his first term...... gee, that sounds familiar...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

No, it took two to tango. Deep Throat (code name for the informer), who fed Woodward & Bernstein all the info they published, turned out to be none other than Mark Felt,  a 30-year veteran of the FBI, who was angry at being passed over for the job of FBI director when Nixon gave it to L Patrick Gray, a lawyer over at the Department of justice.

We can easily agree on Nixon getting involved in what he shouldn't have, but let us not discout the who and why he was brought down.

R.d7561bf6a6fba05e6bc0777baa40da54?rik=%2b7yWDsol%2bV%2bXhQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fi.dailymail.co.uk%2fi%2fpix%2f2015%2f07%2f03%2f16%2f2A33F65D00000578-3137590-image-a-4_1435936002702.jpg&ehk=ajRND6q7CoJhpIqRE%2bSd7MGULKvGYJ0hMbDzjshUsUc%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
let us not discout the who and why he was brought down.

The 'why' was because his illegal actions and gross abuse of power was exposed. The 'who' doesn't really matter that much.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

apparently there's a school of thought that it was the agent's fault nixon was a criminal scumbag.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
The 'why' was because his illegal actions and gross abuse of power was exposed.

So can't distinguish between the two things. I'm sure you were able to do it when they impeached Bill Clinton. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
4.1.6  zuksam  replied to  devangelical @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
apparently there's a school of thought that it was the agent's fault nixon was a criminal scumbag.

Nixon was a scumbag but so was Mark Felt. He didn't go after Nixon because it was the right thing to do he did it because of a personal vendetta. If Nixon had given him the job there would never have been a Watergate scandal, Felt would have helped keep it covered up.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.7  devangelical  replied to  zuksam @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

... if, if, ... and if nixon would have died while in federal prison, maybe we'd have better quality federal employees now, especially the elected kind.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5  Hallux    3 weeks ago

           "The agency should be scrapped and something new built to replace it."

Sounds like a "Defund the Police" movement ...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  JBB    3 weeks ago

As if Trump was not colluding with Russia in 2016.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6    3 weeks ago

The lie that lives on, evidently!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 weeks ago

Don Jr and Rudy Giuliani confirmed Trump was colluding with Russia to build Trump Tower Moscow right up until election day 2016.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the entire Russia collusion narrative was concocted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

In fact, didn't Bobbie Meuller find evidence of Clinton colluding with the Russians?  Something about uranium I think?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

We didn't get much coverage on that. The media was as quiet as Biden taking his 1 PM nap.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the entire Russia collusion narrative was concocted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

Utter nonsense. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

Ridiculous. Post your "proof". 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

A few still cling to the lie!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    3 weeks ago
Ridiculous. Post your "proof". 

It always amazes me how some people are so extremely vocal when it comes to Trump and the Russians.  Despite all the evidence, they are extremely vocal about it.  More so than any other Trump claim.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

I hate to be the b earer  of b ad tidings, but the entire Russia collusion narrative was concocted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

Um, no.. 

512

Guessing that you forgot about the trump tower meeting with....more Russians. Lets not forget that trump supporters and even hannity openly support Russia.

512

And who could forget this?

Trump says “Russia, if you’re listening” was a joke. There’s tape to prove otherwise.

Trump is layering lie upon lie to rewrite the history of his encouragement of Russian hackers.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Something about uranium I think?

512

Just more lies from trump. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

Utter nonsense. 

A few still cling to the lie! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Um, Yes.

For America, we are now ending the final chapter on the Clinton campaign operatives and lawyers who resorted to illegal and immoral methods to concoct false allegations against the Trump campaign and feed them to an all too willing FBI and corrupt media.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Because they know he was guilty. Trump and his campaign wanted very badly to collude with Russia, because they didnt see anything wrong with it. The fact that they were not able to put complete collusion in place reflects more on their capabilities than their intentions. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
6.1.14  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
Despite all the evidence, they are extremely vocal about it.  More so than any other Trump claim.

Really........show me those charges of collusion, I must have missed them.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Russia collusion narrative was concocted by Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a research firm called   Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon , a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as   Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination .

You act like Clinton asked Russia to hack trump's emails.. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

We see how desperately and deplorably some cling to their lies.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY'RE DEBUNKED. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.15    3 weeks ago

How in the world is this still being perpetrated?  Nothing in your link suggests that any Republican paid for the Steele dossier. 

The DNC and HRC's campaign were  Fusion's  client when they decided to make up the Russian collusion conspiracy by hiring  Christopher Steele and feeding him lies to report.  

Here's an example of how corrupt the process was:

In British court, Steele was deposed. He related that he didn’t know about any Alfa Bank–Trump connection. So why put it in the dossier? Well, he was told about the alleged corrupt Alfa Bank–Trump tie by . . . wait for it . . . yes . . . Michael Sussmann. 

So, the Clinton lawyers at Perkins Coie give information to Steele, who folds it into the collusion tall tale he presses on the FBI, without telling the bureau that he’s working for the Clinton campaign (through his cutouts, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS). 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.17    3 weeks ago

Trump was not framed. Trump and his campaign sought to collude with Russia. That was the god damn purpose of the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower for christ sake. 

Roger Stone sought to coordinate the Wiki Leaks releases (from Russia) so they would time with inflection points in the campaign. Trumps campaign manager was supplying Russian intelligence with confidential polling information so the Russians could target demographic and geographical groups within the US with their anti Clinton propaganda. 

You cant change history Sean.   In no way was Trump "framed". 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.18    3 weeks ago
Trump was not framed

Since he, or anyone in his orbit, wasn't charged with any crime for conspiring with Russia., that's true.   But the Steele Dossier was  absolutely an attempt to frame him.  It just failed. 

The really sad part is you have people, in 2021, denying the Clintons and DNC paid for the Steele report. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.19    3 weeks ago

The really sad part is that you have turned yourself into an apologist for the worst president in US history, and one of the worst human beings ever to hold high office. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.20    3 weeks ago

into an apologist for the worst president in US histor

Since when did refusing to lie and make things up about someone turn into being an apologist for them? You know the Republicans didn't pay for the Steele dossier. Are you okay with lying about it to protect the Clintons? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.20    3 weeks ago
Just plain old one of the worst human beings ever

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

Did you happen to see the "?" at the end of my sentences?  Those indicate that the sentence is a question.  Meaning, I was asking a question not stating a "fact" in the same fashion that you repeatedly do.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
6.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

Good for you!!! You figured out how to use Powerpoint!!!!!  jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

Now, as I ask JohnRussell - Did you happen to see the "?" at the end of my sentences?  Those indicate that the sentence is a question.  Meaning, I was asking a question not stating a "fact" in the same fashion that you repeatedly do.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
6.1.25  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.15    3 weeks ago

Wrong again; keep spurting something that has been disproven a million times. 

[ deleted ]

The research was actually initiated in 2015 by “a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump,” according to the  New York Times , but when that source of funding dried up the San Francisco law firm Perkins Coie brokered a deal to keep it going on behalf of the Democrats. The Post reported:

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

[ deleted ] No matter how many times it is proven that the Clinton campaign funded the Steele Dossier; and also got it into the hands of the FBI and other prominent politicians- they still want to blame Republicans. 

You act like Clinton asked Russia to hack trump's emails.. 

Putin answers to Trump. Are you really that naive? Russia hacked the DNC- which they denied to the FBI at first (leave that little tidbit out because it is damning evidence against the Democrats); they also hacked the RNC- which blows a whole in the entire faux collusion scandal right there.

Russia hacked into Republican state political campaigns and old email domains of the Republican National Committee but there is no evidence it successfully penetrated President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign, FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday.

Comey also told lawmakers Russia did not release information obtained from the state campaigns or the old RNC email domains, comments that may buttress the U.S. intelligence view that Moscow tried to help Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.

U.S. intelligence agencies on Friday released an assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a covert effort to help Republican Trump’s electoral chances by discrediting Clinton.

The report, which omitted classified details, was the U.S. government’s starkest public description of what it says was a Russian effort to manipulate the American electoral process by leaking hacked emails from Democrats.

So Russia hacked the RNC also; and tried to hack Trump's campaign- but didn't look like it succeeded. Putin sows dissent. That is his only goal. [ deleted ]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.25    3 weeks ago
Wrong again; keep spurting something that has been disproven a million times

Yep. And you can prove them wrong a million more times and they will still persist in pushing the lie. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.1.27  dennis smith  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.17    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @6    3 weeks ago

We know that's not a lie!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
6.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @6    3 weeks ago

And, your hero, Mueller, said it wasn't so - ya gotta problem with facts?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.3.1  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @6.3    3 weeks ago

Mueller did not say that...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @6    3 weeks ago
jbb wrote: "As if Trump was not colluding with Russia in 2016."

No he wasn't. Totally debunked.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @6.4    3 weeks ago

No he wasn't. Totally debunked.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.4.1    3 weeks ago

Imagine thinking that's evidence of collusion. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.2    3 weeks ago

What do you think that video is evidence of?

How about desire to collude? Intention to collude?  

The idea that unless there were criminal indictments nothing happened, is bizarre. 

Trump should have been forced from the race just for asking a US enemy to intercede in our election on his behalf. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.4.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.3    3 weeks ago
hat do you think that video is evidence of?

Asking Russia to find evidence that was destroyed by Hillary Clinton after it was subpoenaed. 

Publicly asking another country to help in a federal investigation is not "collusion" or an attempt to collude.  On the most basic level, you realize this was done publicly and openly, right? 

rced from the race just for asking a US enemy to intercede in our election on his behalf. 

So you believe the emails destroyed by Clinton definitely contained evidence she committed crimes?  That aside, how does  asking Russia to turn over these emails to the FBI constitute "interceding in our election"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.4    3 weeks ago

I dont care if Hillary Clinton buried the emails in her backyard. You dont ask an enemy of our country to help you win the presidency. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
6.4.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.2    3 weeks ago

Imagine thinking that's evidence of collusion. 

How long after that speech did Russia end up hacking the DNC server and stealing the emails? 

Less than 96 hours. 

Keep telling yourself there is no evidence. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.4.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.4.6    3 weeks ago
ong after that speech did Russia end up hacking the DNC server and stealing the emails? 

Do you think finding the emails HRC destroyed after they were subpoenaed and and the DNC are the same thing?  Pay attention the language involved, a little. 

eep telling yourself there is no evidence. 

Tell Mueller. He didn't think this is. Why do you? DO you imagine he wasn't aware of what Trump said? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
6.4.8  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.5    3 weeks ago
You dont ask an enemy of our country to help you win the presidency. 

Probably so, but you believe its OK to ask the enemy of the country to assist with getting Americans out of a country taken over by the same terrorist organization.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.4.9  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.3    3 weeks ago

The idea that unless there were criminal indictments nothing happened, is bizarre.

That applies to Hillary Clinton.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I'll tell you how dumb the seeded article is

The FBI’s last extended run of good publicity, aimed at helping live down the smell of J. Edgar Hoover, came more than 50 years ago thanks to Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and his weekly show on ABC, “The F.B.I.,” which went off the air in 1974.

The writer seems unaware that there is CURRENTLY a weekly show on CBS titled "FBI" which is a fictional drama showing the heroics and crime fighting ability of the members of the FBI's NY office.  "FBI" is entering its fourth season and I believe it gets at least decent ratings (it has been renewed every year). 

Like every other governmental institution the FBI could be run better and maybe achieve better results, but the idea that we should disband the FBI because Trumpsters dont like them is absurd. We were told Barr and Durham were going to bring down Comey, Strzok , McCabe, and even Mueller, and others and none of that has come to pass. 

The FBI investigated Trump because they had information that the Trump campaign was interacting with Russians. That turned out to be exactly the case.  The fact that this FISA application overreached or that agent lied about peripheral things is meaningless.  Barr bombed and Durham bombed. Too damn bad. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago
The FBI investigated Trump because

The FBI investigated Trump because they wanted to remove him and most of the country knows it.

It was an investigation in search of a crime.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
7.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    3 weeks ago

And never found one

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    3 weeks ago
The FBI investigated Trump because they wanted to remove him and most of the country knows it.

Nope. Nice try though. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

And never found one

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

I'm afraid so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

Kind of says it all. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

But they did find evidence in the Whitewater investigation - RIGHT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT

And they did have evidence in the e-mail-server investigation - WHICH THE FBI ALLOWED TO BE DESTROYED.

So you see, even when democrats get away with stuff, most of us know the truth.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

I'm afraid so.

So trump's own FBI wanted to remove him? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
7.1.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

Yeah, but Hillary eats babies.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

Not a single indictment for conspiring with Russians.  Not one. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.9    3 weeks ago

Not a single indictment for conspiring with Russians.  Not one. 

No indictments for dropping a nuke on Mars either. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
7.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.8    3 weeks ago
Agreed
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7    3 weeks ago
"Like every other governmental institution the FBI could be run better and maybe achieve better results, but the idea that we should disband the FBI because Trumpsters dont like them is absurd. We were told Barr and Durham were going to bring down Comey, Strzok , McCabe, and even Mueller, and others and none of that has come to pass. 

Ya!  We're still waiting on those indictments of the entire Obama administration.  I believe that is what Comment 6.1.12 is referring to.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
8  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

The trillion dollar question is whether or not the FBI can be fixed.  The Bush administration deliberately transformed the FBI into some sort of domestic quasi-CIA and diminished the law enforcement mission of the FBI.  Today's FBI is more about obtaining domestic intelligence concerning political activities and engaging in counter propaganda projects than enforcing law.  The Bush administration required the FBI to embed itself in politics so, naturally, politics is emphasized in agency activities.  At this point it may not be possible to excise the political mission from the FBI.  

The FBI may not be partisan but make no mistake, the FBI has been transformed into a highly political institution whose mission is to deliberately engage in politics.  Law enforcement isn't the primary mission of today's FBI.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nerm_L @8    3 weeks ago

Today's FBI is more about obtaining domestic intelligence concerning political activities

Yeah, like graft, corruption, and conspiracy.  I guess you’re okay with those.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
9  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

P.T. Barnum was right...

512

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
10  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    3 weeks ago

Vic, you need to use the original title.  What you are doing is not only a CoC violation, it can damage the integrity of NT.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10    3 weeks ago

That's the only one I have. 

See if you can have it censored.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1    3 weeks ago

If you click on the link that is the fucking title for God's sake. What the hell is it lately with the Title police? JFC

As I told the critics the other day, the "Fetch Seed" pulls the damned title I didn't assign it  Tell it to TiG. He is the guru

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.1    3 weeks ago

I believe Sisters point is that the title as it appears implies that the seed is a Wall Street Journal Editorial, which it is not. It is an op-ed by one person. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    3 weeks ago
It is an op-ed by one person. 

Did you click on the link? For the WSJ or they couldn't use it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.4    3 weeks ago

Normally a column in a newspaper does not necessarily imply it coincides with the editorial position of the paper. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.5    3 weeks ago

Well if they don't pay for it I see your point. But why muddy your name if you don't see the point in the OP-ED

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Jasper2529
Hallux
Dulay


42 visitors