If not treason, then otherwise illegal?
Or, is it what we expect from our FBI agents nowadays?
Benedict Arnold stuff.
Just a guess though since I don't know if this Code requires force to be used or not.
(no message)
(no message)
There was a group of FBI agents with definite political views.
They hated Clinton. I assume that’s what you mean.
You wouldn’t know this if you only heard Fox’s interpretation of it, though.
You do know that even FBI agents are entitled to have political opinions and discuss them?
(no message)
Silly me. You need to know their political party.
(no message)
You can't definitively say that is wrong?
Under what circumstances would you support that? Are there any facts which would lead you to support that? Would like you to answer this question.
Anyway, here are some facts for you. He lays them out pretty well.
Let me help. Let’s talk about a plot to rob a bank.
3 guys sit at a kitchen table eating pizza and hatch a plan to rob a local bank. They identify the name of the bank, the location, and draw out an approach and exit plan. They discuss the firearms and disguises they will use. They discuss what role each will play.
The next morning, they meet up at the same house. They suit up, grab the guns, drive to the local bank and pull off the caper as planned.
Do those hard facts reflect a conspiracy to commit bank robbery? Yes, they do.
Now, see if you can provide us with hard facts re your hypothetical re subverting an election, and we will then be in a position to weigh in.
with multiple self admissions from the involved agents, you can't draw the slightest line between two points right next to eachother.
You are simply in denial mode now, but it is evident to all. Mueller investigation is no longer credible in the eyes of everyone. I told you that if you wanted a meaningful investigation that you would need to scrap team Mueller and start over (back when he failed to recuse himself even despite a very close relationship with Comey - that was the first huge red flag to the public), but you didn't listen.
I'm betting you didn't have the guts to watch the Gowdy interview, but if you want to see what a sharp lawyer thinks, I recommend that you watch. You should also watch because Gowdy provides a timeline for all of the texts in the context of events which i guarantee that you are unaware of from your usual NYT/WaPo sources.
Now, feel free to provide the hard facts to Ned’s hypothetical that he could not muster.
Have any FBI agents pled guilty to subverting an election?
Has any grand jury indicted them for subverting an election?
You chirp the same shit everyday. All nonsense.
Mueller’s investigation is the real deal. Why? He has real evidence.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/15/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-russia-probe-so-far.html
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Beyond that, I did not hear evidence tantamount to subverting an election or an investigation.
Charging Hillary Clinton with criminal wrongdoing then and now, would come from the AG. The consistent takeaway by all experienced prosecutors has been that Hillary's actions were not criminal. As you know, Trump believes in "zero tolerance" enforcement of the law. His Department of Justice has had ample time to charge Hillary.
Moreover, any bias re the Mueller investigation team can be vetted in a courtroom. My strong opinion is that the Mueller team will welcome any such cross examination.
There is no possibility for the two sides to agree on facts, must less a uniform application of the law to facts. That doesn't bode well for the country if there is a constitutional crisis. There is no way for the winner to convince the loser that his loss was legitimate. The expected winner will, instead, have to decide exactly what victory he can get, given that a substantial portion of the country will believe very strongly that the Constitution has been set aside.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Not sure what you’re asking
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You are such a hack that you won’t even admit that Orange’s campaign had inappropriate contacts with the Russians.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/19/fbi-official-peter-strzok-escorted-from-fbi-building-lawyer-confirms.html
but should it be? Yes!
Illegal, yes?
Lay out the facts for us to make an educated decision.
(no message)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nyPpOOVBCI
I'm thinking you misread my reply. Lay out the facts for us to decide. So far all they're discussing is circumstantial evidence. I wanna see a changed document, outright manipulation of steps of an investigation. You don't think for one minute if the FBI knew he had a hand in manipulation he wouldn't be locked up instead of going to HR?
superiors wanted it that way. To think anything other than this is absurd at this point. And I can tell that you didn't even watch the video from your comment.
(no message)
(no message)