• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Department of Justice investigating Comey's actions before election

wfumike02 said:
No. I'm blaming the Dems for nominating a shit candidate. Trump was going to get the crazies. A better candidate would have overcome that.
Click to expand...

That's not relevant to what Comey did. He broke with precedent and procedure. He held back info on Trump but held a press conference to give out non-info that he knew would harm Hillary.
 
RJKarl said:
That's not relevant to what Comey did. He broke with precedent and procedure. He held back info on Trump but held a press conference to give out non-info that he knew would harm Hillary.
Click to expand...

Basically, he did what the Clintons have spent 30 years doing, and suddenly RJ is outraged.
 
Remember when jh was outraged at Candy Crowley for influencing the election way back in 2012? Simpler times, those were.
 
neither Clinton was the head of the FBI in the week leading up to an election
 
DeaconSig said:
Remember when jh was outraged at Candy Crowley for influencing the election way back in 2012? Simpler times, those were.
Click to expand...

If the Candy Crowleys of the world did their jobs, the American people wouldn't have to find out the truth about Democrats from the KGB.
 
If "truth about Democrats" involves theft, then there was no "truth about Republicans" revealed either.

Either way, the response is cute. My how things change.

For the record, unless there is evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government, all of this is a big bunch of meh.
 
I just want to know when we are going to get to the bottom of Scalia's murder? I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
 
RJKarl said:
That's not relevant to what Comey did. He broke with precedent and procedure. He held back info on Trump but held a press conference to give out non-info that he knew would harm Hillary.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely relevant to what she did. If HRC wasn't ethically bankrupt and if the DNC hadn't turned a blind eye to it and forced her down the voters' throats, there wouldn't have been an issue as to the Democratic nominee being under FBI investigation.
 
DeaconSig said:
If "truth about Democrats" involves theft, then there was no "truth about Republicans" revealed either.

Either way, the response is cute. My how things change.

For the record, unless there is evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government, all of this is a big bunch of meh.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting defense to say "That email you found was stolen!", instead of, say, "That email you found was not authentic."

I've seen convincing defenses before, and none of them sounded like this:

 
jhmd2000 said:
It's an interesting defense to say "That email you found was stolen!", instead of, say, "That email you found was not authentic."

I've seen convincing defenses before, and none of them sounded like this:

Click to expand...

I'm sure you tuck yourself in at night with the idea that your party doesn't have any emails that would be problematic if showed to the general public.

But let's not lose track of the point- if someone had broken into the DNC headquarters to steal documents, that is a bad thing, right? If someone had decided to mug John Podesta and steal his laptop, that would not be acceptable either, would it?
 
DeaconSig said:
I'm sure you tuck yourself in at night with the idea that your party doesn't have any emails that would be problematic if showed to the general public.

But let's not lose track of the point- if someone had broken into the DNC headquarters to steal documents, that is a bad thing, right? If someone had decided to mug John Podesta and steal his laptop, that would not be acceptable either, would it?
Click to expand...

No, you're thinking of Roy Cooper. He's the one that doesn't have any email.

On the hypothetical, sure. It would be a bad thing if somebody broke into a locked facility. Theft is bad.

On the facts, it's even worse when the break-in was entirely preventable because the facility was essentially unsecured. Yes, cybersecurity is important. Glad we all got here, eventually.

Whether by criminal act of another or good old-fashioned negligence, some unflattering things came out about Hillary. The part where this gets interesting to me is that the email confirmed a lot of the things Pubs had been saying about Hillary, but Dems wouldn't agree to because I guess in their minds these points were still arguable. When it ceased to be arguable (in the form of primary sources), the implausible defenses continued. That's the frustrating part to me. We really couldn't agree that neither of these people were qualified to be President of this country? Woof.
 
wfumike02 said:
It's absolutely relevant to what she did. If HRC wasn't ethically bankrupt and if the DNC hadn't turned a blind eye to it and forced her down the voters' throats, there wouldn't have been an issue as to the Democratic nominee being under FBI investigation.
Click to expand...

It's COMEY'S actions not what a dirtbag Hillary is. He dramatically broke precedent and protocol.

What you are saying is, "Nobody likes my neighbor. He's an asshole. So, I can justify fucking his wife and telling the world about it."
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
No, you're thinking of Roy Cooper. He's the one that doesn't have any email.

On the hypothetical, sure. It would be a bad thing if somebody broke into a locked facility. Theft is bad.

On the facts, it's even worse when the break-in was entirely preventable because the facility was essentially unsecured. Yes, cybersecurity is important. Glad we all got here, eventually.

Whether by criminal act of another or good old-fashioned negligence, some unflattering things came out about Hillary. The part where this gets interesting to me is that the email confirmed a lot of the things Pubs had been saying about Hillary, but Dems wouldn't agree to because I guess in their minds these points were still arguable. When it ceased to be arguable (in the form of primary sources), the implausible defenses continued. That's the frustrating part to me. We really couldn't agree that neither of these people were qualified to be President of this country? Woof.
Click to expand...

Take. The. L.
 
warak said:
true
Click to expand...

Many things that are true are not responsive to the question.

Did she lose because she was the person she was, or did she lose because people were finally confronted with incontrovertible evidence that she was the person she was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top