Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
volperdinger

Ex-FBI deputy director faulted by Justice Department on media disclosure

107 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

There is a lot of that on this board, in the posting and elsewhere.

It is just garden variety trolling.  But you knew that. 

Share this post


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

There is a lot of that on this board, in the posting and elsewhere.

Still, there is no evidence of the director trying to influence an election, as you have claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Excellent point and it caused me to go back and look at his track record.  Whoa.  

One point and one observation;  he was working, at least at the start, for  the President (FDR).  Doing so buys one a lot of cover.  It’s not anymore honorable or legal, but it sure is better protected!

The observation is that everyone since him, with maybe the exception of Nixon, has been a veritable piker in the use of power to advance one’s personal interests.  Hoover was dangerous.

Hoover was known to pick his horse and use the FBI to help out. He picked Nixon becuase he thought he could blackmail him into getting his way.

there is a scene in the movie Nixon which is one of many conversation Hoover had that shows how he used his files to influence politicians to get what he wanted which was anyone but RFK and make sure Nixon did his bidding out of some perceived debt.

Edited by jtowne-swim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me no matter which side you're on, Comey looks like a goof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hst2 said:

Still, there is no evidence of the director trying to influence an election, as you have claimed.

no, but he was trying to influence the Hillary Presidency, he thought her winning was a done deal. He didn't want her to have to deal with the e-mail thing as President, figured she could put it to rest before she took office in doing what he did.  So, he still was basing his so called law enforcement decisions on political factors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, volperdinger said:

So what is your point, that the term “untruthfulness” as described in the IG Report is not synonymous with the what everyone knows to be a lie? Care to define “ untruthfulness”? It’s a shame, that you leftists consider every aspect of ethics a grey area. 

Like the man firing McCabe telling the senate he never met with Russians?

Like Trump telling us 2000 lies last year?

The irony of this farce would be hilarious if not for the totalitarian undertones to it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

It is just garden variety trolling.  But you knew that. 

Oh, look who's come out from under his bridge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Saticon3 said:

seems to me no matter which side you're on, Comey looks like a goof.

Is that worse than looking like a corrupt tyrant? 

Probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

It is just garden variety trolling.  But you knew that. 

Yeah, I do.  I'm finding that a particular poster generally provides some good topics and points that at least makes one have to form cogent counter-arguments - and then all of a sudden the same poster devolves into someone capable of denying any contact with  reality and forming arguments that have absolutely no logic behind them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, SemiAuto said:

And look, he's attacking hst2 with jibberish. How refreshing!

And this "federal investigation following policy and protocol" just happened to come together a day or so before the fellow's retirement?  Just a big coincidence that the president was pining for.

And an Attorney General who has recused himself from the Russia investigation (who, himself, lied about Russians) fired a witness in the Russia investigation. Policy and protocol? 

Is that it?

Your political purity is a marvel.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Yeah, I do.  I'm finding that a particular poster generally provides some good topics and points that at least makes one have to form cogent counter-arguments - and then all of a sudden the same poster devolves into someone capable of denying any contact with  reality and forming arguments that have absolutely no logic behind them.

 

So you are now avoiding your assertion that Comey was fired for influencing the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hst2 said:

And look, he's attacking hst2 with jibberish. How refreshing!

And this "federal investigation following policy and protocol" just happened to come together a day or so before the fellow's retirement?  Just a big coincidence that the president was pining for.

And an Attorney General who has recused himself from the Russia investigation (who, himself, lied about Russians) fired a witness in the Russia investigation. Policy and protocol? 

Is that it?

Your political purity is a marvel.

That gibberish is your own post.  Again.   

How is it my political purity when I don't care for either side of this mess?   Yet here you are, using X to rage at Trump and using the opposite of X to rage at Trump.

The purity is yours.   That it is driven by rage is what makes it so laughable.  Sad and pathetic, but funny.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

That gibberish is your own post.  Again.   

How is it my political purity when I don't care for either side of this mess?   Yet here you are, using X to rage at Trump and using the opposite of X to rage at Trump.

The purity is yours.   That it is driven by rage is what makes it so laughable.  Sad and pathetic, but funny.  

You answer your own question from your lofty position of irrelevance.

No doubt your misguided sense of self-righteousness masks chronic insecurity, reducing you forever to nithing more than a tiresome scold.

I point out the totalitarian tactics Trump uses, and you want to call it "following policy and protocol." He has excellent minions in you and MOR. You fellows do him a favor by reducing his totalitarian impulses as him being simply nasty or "Like everybody else." Tyrants count on such simple-minded criticisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, hst2 said:

You answer your own question from your lofty position of irrelevance.

No doubt your misguided sense of self-righteousness masks chronic insecurity, reducing you forever to nithing more than a tiresome scold.

I point out the totalitarian tactics Trump uses, and you want to call it "following policy and protocol." He has excellent minions in you and MOR. You fellows do him a favor by reducing his totalitarian impulses as him being simply nasty or "Like everybody else." Tyrants count on such simple-minded criticisms.

The 'following policy and protocol' was your previous post.   You wanted it followed.  Now you don't.  It is trolling on your part.  You're not much different than Trump's twitter feed.

Edited by SemiAuto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

The 'following policy and protocol' was your previous post.   You wanted it followed.  Now you don't.  It is trolling on your part.  You're not much different than Trump's twitter feed.

Ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

The 'following policy and protocol' was your previous post.   You wanted it followed.  Now you don't.  It is trolling on your part.  You're not much different than Trump's twitter feed.

How do I not want it followed?

Share this post


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

How do I not want it followed?

You're the one complaining about McCabe being fired.   The IG has a legitimate reason even if Trump is acting in a petty matter.  Since it serves your purpose in raging at Trump you discount the former and pretend the latter is all there is too it.   As MoR points out, that is completely detached from reality.  Trolling.

Share this post


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

You're the one complaining about McCabe being fired.   The IG has a legitimate reason even if Trump is acting in a petty matter.  Since it serves your purpose in raging at Trump you discount the former and pretend the latter is all there is too it.   As MoR points out, that is completely detached from reality.  Trolling.

Please point out where I complained that McCabe was fired.

I do not rage at Trump, I simply point out his personal involvement in influencing the process in order to punish a personal enemy who is a witness in an investigation that he does not like, which serves as a warning to others.

He would delight in your defense.

Share this post


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

Please point out where I complained that McCabe was fired.

I do not rage at Trump, I simply point out his personal involvement in influencing the process in order to punish a personal enemy who is a witness in an investigation that he does not like, which serves as a warning to others.

He would delight in your defense.

If you're now claiming to be okay with McCabe being fired then we are done here.  All your sound and fury signified nothing.  Again.

Will you ever stand by your own posts?  I swear, it is like Trump's twitter feed.  Fury and nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

If you're now claiming to be okay with McCabe being fired then we are done here.  All your sound and fury signified nothing.  Again.

Will you ever stand by your own posts?  I swear, it is like Trump's twitter feed.  Fury and nonsense.

Please list the post I am not standing by.

Share this post


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

What does that have to do with the McCabe investigation and my claiming McCabe shouldn't be fired?

Situational ethics being pretty much a lack of them.  Second time.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

Situational ethics being pretty much a lack of them.  Second time.   

 

Please explain. You don't appear to have read a single one of my posts on this issue, but seem to have me very much on your mind..

 

Edited by hst2

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