Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ode2Joy

Washington Post: Does the Hillary Clinton email matter need a fresh look? Yes.

179 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/03/does-the-hillary-clinton-email-matter-need-a-fresh-look/?utm_term=.b778e3259fb9
 

Quote

 

Before Trump’s election, we didn’t know about FBI deputy counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok or his role in changing Comey’s Clinton testimony from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”; we didn’t know that he was not apolitical and that he would reveal his anti-Trump bias in texts to others; we didn’t know, as recent reports now confirm, that the FBI believed there was evidence that laws were broken when Clinton and her aides improperly transmitted classified information; and we didn’t know that Comey had drafted an exoneration of Clinton before she was even interviewed by the FBI. And, oh, by the way, when Clinton was eventually interviewed, her statements were not recorded and she was not under oath. Hmm.

...if an assistant secretary of state had done what Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted. And in Clinton’s case, she specifically warned State Department employees against doing exactly that. Some suggest that none of this is relevant because Clinton lost, but America doesn’t work that way.

 

All excellent points in the Washington Post.  Sounds like there were some in the FBI who were trying to do to fix that report in Hillary's favor just like how the DNC tried to rig things in Hillary's favor.  

Exoneration drafted BEFORE she was even interviewed?

Her statements were not recorded and she wasn't under oath to answer the questions to help ensure honestly and accurately? 

Deplorable. 

 

Edited by Ode2Joy
To review to make sure it was fair and balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Hey, look over here!"

Peter Strzok is accused of "changing Comey's Clinton testimony", but the link itself says "The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter."

So why does this claim persist? I think we need to investigate that.

While people complain about his criticism of Trump, you just have to wonder what was going through his head and the heads of other law enforcement officers at the F.B.I. as they learned more and more about the growing connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hst2 said:

"Hey, look over here!"

Peter Strzok is accused of "changing Comey's Clinton testimony", but the link itself says "The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter."

So why does this claim persist? I think we need to investigate that.

Strzok was probably the team leader with final say.  That's how "team efforts" work in the federal gubment bureaucracies. 

Since the exoneration was allegedly drafted before she was even interviewed, it now sounds more likely than ever that findings and fact were less important and maybe even disregarded because exoneration was the desired result.

Repeated from the quote from the Washington Post story:

Quote

...if an assistant secretary of state had done what Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted. And in Clinton’s case, she specifically warned State Department employees against doing exactly that. Some suggest that none of this is relevant because Clinton lost, but America doesn’t work that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed is a partisan hack, not an attorney. He needs to go back and review the testimony of James Comey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say bring it on. No way Ed Rogers has an ax to grind.:rolleyes:

I'm all for it. Just to make if fair, let's let Mueller finish his current investigation, give him a couple months off, and bring him back to look at/for Hillary's emails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/03/does-the-hillary-clinton-email-matter-need-a-fresh-look/?utm_term=.b778e3259fb9
 

All excellent points in the Washington Post.  Sounds like there were some in the FBI who were trying to do to fix that report in Hillary's favor just like how the DNC tried to rig things in Hillary's favor.  

Exoneration drafted BEFORE she was even interviewed?

Her statements were not recorded and she wasn't under oath to answer the questions to help ensure honestly and accurately? 

Deplorable. 

 

 

 

Ohhhhhh a blog.

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

Strzok was probably the team leader with final say.  That's how "team efforts" work in the federal gubment bureaucracies. 

Since the exoneration was allegedly drafted before she was even interviewed, it now sounds more likely than ever that findings and fact were less important and maybe even disregarded because exoneration was the desired result.

Repeated from the quote from the Washington Post story:

 

A draft is not a final statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

I say bring it on. No way Ed Rogers has an ax to grind.:rolleyes:

I'm all for it. Just to make if fair, let's let Mueller finish his current investigation, give him a couple months off, and bring him back to look at/for Hillary's emails. 

I’m sure President Pence would be fine with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/03/does-the-hillary-clinton-email-matter-need-a-fresh-look/?utm_term=.b778e3259fb9
 

All excellent points in the Washington Post.  Sounds like there were some in the FBI who were trying to do to fix that report in Hillary's favor just like how the DNC tried to rig things in Hillary's favor.  

Exoneration drafted BEFORE she was even interviewed?

Her statements were not recorded and she wasn't under oath to answer the questions to help ensure honestly and accurately? 

Deplorable. 

 

I’m trying to think of the nicest way possible to call the author of that article a “moron”

Law a Enforcement people have political opinions and biases but the Law is unbiased. 

Clinton wasn’t indicted because she didn’t break the Law. Time to move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

Strzok was probably the team leader with final say.  That's how "team efforts" work in the federal gubment bureaucracies. 

Since the exoneration was allegedly drafted before she was even interviewed, it now sounds more likely than ever that findings and fact were less important and maybe even disregarded because exoneration was the desired result.

Repeated from the quote from the Washington Post story:

 

The DOJ had the final say on the email matter and they didn’t disagree with Jim Comey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Reminds me of when former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell blamed the FBI for changing the Benghazi talking points from calling it an attack to calling it a protest, and then we later learned it was the CIA who changed it.  

Edited by flyboy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

Reminds me of when former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell blamed the FBI for changing the Benghazi talking points from calling it an attack to calling it a protest, and then we later learned it was the CIA who changed it.  

He blamed the State Department not the FBI

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

"Hey, look over here!"

Peter Strzok is accused of "changing Comey's Clinton testimony", but the link itself says "The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter."

So why does this claim persist? I think we need to investigate that.

While people complain about his criticism of Trump, you just have to wonder what was going through his head and the heads of other law enforcement officers at the F.B.I. as they learned more and more about the growing connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

Yet again, we see people with no clue having conniptions when they find out that, oh... several people were involved in drafting a memo. It's as if these idiots have no real world experience whatsoever or... maybe they're just trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, hst2 said:

"Hey, look over here!"

Peter Strzok is accused of "changing Comey's Clinton testimony", but the link itself says "The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter."

So why does this claim persist? I think we need to investigate that.

While people complain about his criticism of Trump, you just have to wonder what was going through his head and the heads of other law enforcement officers at the F.B.I. as they learned more and more about the growing connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

Were they wholly ignorant of the Hillary-Russian connection?  There were cash transactions there that everyone knows about.  

Edited by jdsample

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

Yet again, we see people with no clue having conniptions when they find out that, oh... several people were involved in drafting a memo. It's as if these idiots have no real world experience whatsoever or... maybe they're just trolling.

The author of the Post article is likely aware that Lawyers draft those kinds of documents at the FBI so special attention is paid to the wording and phrasing. 

Op-Ed columnists get paid to get “Clicks” so they write sensational stuff that grabs the attention of morons...

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question is why the WAPO comes out again with a negative for Hillary and why now?   --None of these things happen in a vacuum, its always related to something else-- my guess-- Hillary just won't go  away and they want her gone- they thought the Weinstein and sex thing would do it, but she's still hanging around and they need the decks clear for their going forward plans, which do not include her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulflower said:

I’m trying to think of the nicest way possible to call the author of that article a “moron”

Law a Enforcement people have political opinions and biases but the Law is unbiased. 

Clinton wasn’t indicted because she didn’t break the Law. Time to move on...

You're really going to claim that she shouldn't have been interviewed under oath, and deny that if an assistant secretary of state had done what Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted?.  

1 hour ago, soulflower said:

The author of the Post article is likely aware that Lawyers draft those kinds of documents at the FBI so special attention is paid to the wording and phrasing. 

Op-Ed columnists get paid to get “Clicks” so they write sensational stuff that grabs the attention of morons...

FBI lawyers draft exoneration documents prior to even interviewing the targets of their investigation?  Please substantiate that or I'll have to say that you are now the one is stating an opinion and trying to pass it off as a fact. 

You act as if you have insider knowledge of how the FBI drafts such documents and this one in particular, so I'm asking you how you know what you claimed to be fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

You're really going to claim that she shouldn't have been interviewed under oath, and deny that if an assistant secretary of state had done what Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted?.  

FBI lawyers draft exoneration documents prior to even interviewing the targets of their investigation?  Please substantiate that or I'll have to say that you are now the one is stating an opinion and trying to pass it off as a fact. 

You act as if you have insider knowledge of how the FBI drafts such documents and this one in particular, so I'm asking you how you know what you claimed to be fact?

Sounds like you are suggesting a mock trial or something. Anything to take the heat off the Trump investigation.

Maybe Congress should give this a second look. Revisit Benghazi while they're at it.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saticon3 said:

the question is why the WAPO comes out again with a negative for Hillary and why now?   --None of these things happen in a vacuum, its always related to something else-- my guess-- Hillary just won't go  away and they want her gone- they thought the Weinstein and sex thing would do it, but she's still hanging around and they need the decks clear for their going forward plans, which do not include her.

A conservative writer uncomfortable with the Mueller investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary needs to be investigated until the appropriate verdict is reached.

Its just that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulflower said:

The DOJ had the final say on the email matter and they didn’t disagree with Jim Comey...

Yeah, Hillary's husband's tarmac buddy who didn't even want the FBI investigation of Hillary to be referred to as an investigation, but as "a matter".

That's certainly a convincing argument that the drafted-before-interviewed exoneration writeup wasn't already predetermined.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdsample said:

Were they wholly ignorant of the Hillary-Russian connection?  There were cash transactions there that everyone knows about.  

You should call them and tell them about it. Im sure they'd want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Sounds like you are suggesting a mock trial or something. Anything to take the heat off the Trump investigation.

I don't believe in either mock trials or mock investigations with predetermined outcomes prior to their start.

Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ode2Joy said:

Yeah, Hillary's husband's tarmac buddy who didn't even want the FBI investigation of Hillary to be referred to as an investigation, but as "a matter".

That's certainly a convincing argument that the drafted-before-interviewed exoneration writeup wasn't already predetermined.  :D 

Did you think Hillary was going to give them something to hang her with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ode2Joy said:

I don't believe in either mock trials or mock investigations with predetermined outcomes prior to their start.

Do you?

Oh, so now the report was written before the investigation started.

So how may "re-dos" do you want. Just as many as it takes to get the verdict you crave?

This is also very amusing. Many of you right-wingers are claiming we will be beside ourselves if Mueller doesn't find anything on Trump.

Well look in the mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0