Obamagate is coming, "Will be worse than Watergate"

I thought it was a great story, and very apt for you. Again, you're welcome.

Actually, I have you discussing an issue a bit instead of just hurling insults, and while you consider shouting and spraying spittle all over your keyboard during your engaged rants a victory, I consider getting one of you unhinged leftists to take a breath and actually entering into a debate a victory.

Again, you're welcome.

Now, let's discuss your noting the 500 or so missing texts, which you called a conspiracy, or fake news, or something. If you can take a breath and focus, I'd appreciate you explaining your thoughts more. You said:

This was in response to an article I linked on Yahoo, which said:

But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 17, 2017. May 17 was the date that Mueller was appointed as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation.

So, are you saying these texts that disappeared were a normal type glitch, could happen to anyone? If so, what do you make of the news that the Department of Justice now says the texts have been recovered?

Finally, reach down into your inner leftist and honestly answer a question:

Would you be concerned if it was learned after the election FBI agents who supported Trump had been in charge of Hilary's email investigation and she had been charged? Had been locked up, as the parlance goes?

I realize I'm taking a leap of faith here, that you are aware of what's going on in the world, but I'm very curious as to your answer.

So, let's debate. I know it's not your style, but give it a shot, it will be fun...

 

I'm trying my best to get him to answer the same question. For all the words he's wrote, he really hasn't said anything substantive...

 

Talking about removing sanctions that the current President has imposed.
Yes.
That's one of the reasons why Russia help Trump. To end the sanctions.

 

Sanctions that were imposed because of the Russian interference in our election

 

These sanctions were the ones imposed because of Russia invading Crimea. And other things.

The Maniski Act, which apparently is what they talked about in the Trump Tower meeting. Were sanctions imposed by the US because Putin had Maniski killed for investigation Russian tax fraud, or something like that.

But so many Trump people talked to so many Russians over a vast time frame. It would have covered Sanctions imposed before the Russian hacking was known.
And sanctions imposed because of Russia's hacking.

 

Simple questions we need Fed.gov to answer (and which hopefully will be included in the soon to be released memo):

–If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it corroborated by independent FBI investigation?

–If the dossier’s information was so used, was the source accurately conveyed to the court so that credibility and potential bias could be weighed (i.e., was the court told that the information came from an opposition-research project sponsored by the Clinton presidential campaign)?

–The FBI has said that significant efforts were made to corroborate Steele’s sensational claims, yet former director James Comey has acknowledged (in June 2017 Senate testimony) that the dossier was “unverified.” If the dossier was used in FISA applications in 2016, has the Justice Department — consistent with its continuing duty of candor in dealings with the tribunal — alerted the court that it did not succeed in verifying Steele’s hearsay reporting based on anonymous sources?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455757/release-the-memo-lets-see-in-it

 

It was a good illustration of why conservatives shouldn't attempt humor. Good humor requires self-awareness and a connection to the real world. You lack that, so you came across as butthurt.

The difference between us? We both insult people. You whine when you get a little back of what you dish out. I don't.

Sure. No news on your failed conspiracy theory. It's still a failed conspiracy theory. How many weeks of nothing have to go by before you admit you've been pushing nonsense? Is there any evidence or lack of evidence that could reduce the religious fervor of your belief here, or is your faith in your fantasy absolutely unshakeable?

It did happen to everyone, or at least a whole lot of people. Hence, your conspiracy looks insane. Even FOX News is too embarrassed to push it any more. Shouldn't you be?

That your conspiracy theory is really dumb, as it requires that the FBI, with all its resources, was still too stupid to delete the backups, and too stupid to understand it needed to delete the backups. A good conspiracy theory shouldn't simultaneously require that the targets be both evil masterminds and total dopes

FBI agents who supported Trump _were_ in charge of the Clinton investigations. And we didn't complain. So there's your answer. You don't have to ask how we would feel. We demonstrated how we did feel -- the opposite way of how corrupt Republican party hacks now feel. We respect the rule of law, you want the rule of law ended. We don't demand that only loyal party apparatchiks investigate our own, while you do.

 

~~~~
OBAMAGATE, THE DEEP STATE, & THE TWILIGHT OF FAKE NEWS
https://medium.com/@blaise_bardamu/obamagate-the-deep-state-the-twilight-of-fake-news-71b2ef982def
Apr 13, 2017 - OBAMAGATE, THE DEEP STATE, & THE TWILIGHT OF FAKE NEWS. Why #Obamagate is likely the biggest political scandal in decades. It now appears that we will have the pleasure of watching Barack Obama's painstakingly-crafted legacy slowly break apart and sink, Titanic-like, into the cold, dark ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

#ObamaGate: Exposing the Obama Deep State
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266022/obamagate-exposing-obama-deep-state-daniel-greenfield
Mar 7, 2017 - Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. After Trump secured the nomination, Obama's people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to ...

​

 

I'm very glad to see you actually participating. Knew you had it in you.

I'll wade through the extraneous nonsense to address your points, and make a couple of my own:

Then explain why, when congressional committees asked for the remaining texts, the FBI said they were not available, blaming Samsung for the missing texts.

They reversed this statement later; why?

Link please, proving this, that FBI agents who were Trump supporters were in charge of the Hillary email investigation?

On the other hand...

We have well-established facts now that FBI Agent Peter Strozk changed the wording of Director Comey's final draft of the report exonerating Hillary, from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless.":

A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

You've ignored this information so far, failing to address this.

Is this simply more 'conspiracy theory?

Please comment on this; you are beginning to establish some intellectual credibility and I'd hate for you to lose it at this point...

 

This thread was started on 1-19, does any one know when Obamagate is supposed to get started??

 

Why are some liberals/progressives/socialists so intent on blocking the release of the memo detailing government actions during a presidential election?

The fact that some leftists are so desperate, so intent on preventing citizens from seeing the memo is revealing in itself.

Their corruption is so deep that they desire a secretive government hiding its actions from us so voters don't learn what Fed.gov has really been doing.

It's been a 180 from the 1960s with many liberals/progressives/socialists – who used to wish for a transparent government – going so far as to publish military secrets.

And that's the difference between them and normal Americans; we want transparency, to shine the light under the rock, regardless if it is military malfeasance, the Department of Education, ATF, FBI... Pick your government bureaucracy; regardless of which party is in power, we need to force them to be transparent and accountable to voters.

Of course, many leftists only believe this if they are out of power, as their actions now reveal...

 

Started during the Obama administration.

 

Well Watergate had an ending, is there no ending to Obamagate?

 

Takes awhile to uncover all of it when you have an administration that continued to ignore requests for information. You can bet it would still be secret if crooked Hillary won.

 

I don't see why it should take this long. Was the 'request for information' from an individual or was it a court order?

 

You do realize Watergate, from the Washington Post's first story on June 20, 1972 until Nixon's resignation Aug 9, 1974 took over two years?

I realize our millennial-driven culture has a short attention span and desires instant answers, but these things do take time.

I'm sure you'll agree that we are fortunate to have the opportunity to examine possible FBI malfeasance. If Hillary had won, possible corruption within the FBI – which I also think you'd agree is scary, a federal police agency not accountable to anyone – would have never been discovered...

 

"We'll have more flexibility to discuss this in more detail afterwards. I'm in the middle of an election".

Sound familiar?

 

My guess is at least 3/4 of the liberals/progressives/socialists here will have no idea what you're talking about, what with their echo chamber and all...

 

Because first they didn't have the texts available, then they fixed the bug and got the texts became available. Why did you find that so confusing?

Occam's Razor is not kind to your conspiracy theory.

Comey, staunch lifelong Republican. Come on, this is basic stuff.

No, we've been over this. We have a rumor reported by CNN. And even if true, it's just a story about how Strozk wrote something true, making it a very good thing, simply because it was true, not because of any partisan thing.

Quite the contrary. I've addressed it directly, and you've ignored the fact that you've been using a rumor about an action that would be good as the basis of a conspiracy theory.

Done. Please comment on your reckless disregard for the value of truth. You only seem to care if things support TheParty, and not if they're true or not. Do you even understand that the claims of TheParty are not what defines truth?

Also, please comment on the ongoing failure of TheParty to provide any evidence backing up your texts conspiracy theory. TheParty has had the texts for days. They're just texts, not long emails. It would only takes a few hours to look over them. Yet days have passed, and nothing. How many days of nothing have to pass before you admit you've been scammed? Like I said, the longer this goes on, the worse you look. That goes for all the conspiracy theorists on this thread, not just you.

 

So you agree that conservatives should stop whining about how Mueller investigation is a fraud because it's taking more than a few months?

Probably not, being that would require consistency on your part.

Oh, there is an FBI investigation going on. Didn't you know? It started concerning how Comey and the NY Field office influenced the election in favor of Trump, and extending to all the FBI. But then, the echo chamber didn't want you to know that, so of course you didn't know.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tion-could-landmine-robert-mueller/965396001/

You should be happy to learn that. But then, you don't want an actual investigation. You want a kangaroo court run by TheParty.

 

Trump wants backdoors into your encrypted data, remember when he was upset apple would not develop a tool that would allow the FBI to bypass cell phone encryption

 

the FBI was run by a Republican... Comey.. that said he only has two choices, speak or conceal, the fact that he choose to speak negatively of Hillary and conceal about Trump says something - the FBI was not being run by Obama, Obama kept a hands off approach as Presidents should

especially when the FBI is investigating the President, you do not fire the one investigating you

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. But shouldn't voters wish for congressional oversight as well as media scrutiny of our federal police force?

Perhaps. So then you'd agree that Andrew McCabe is a staunch Democrat? And that FBI Agent Peter Strozk, who actually led the Hillary email investigation and was a big part of Mueller's investigative team, was also extremely biased?

What do you think of this?:

"Senior F.B.I. officials who helped investigate Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign last year wrote in text messages that Hillary Clinton “just has to win” and described a potential Trump victory as “terrifying,” according to texts released Tuesday night."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/fbi-trump-russia.html

If you can't say this is horrible that various FBI and DOJ personnel are extremely politicized, you've lost all credibility here.

To clarify: leftists believe anonymous media sources when the information is harmful to conservatives, but call anonymous media sources that hurt liberals/progressives/socialists conspiracy theories?

And you would have been OK if we learned an FBI agent investigating Hillary's emails was discovered to had texted, "The witch is corrupt, lock her up." After all, many people believe this is true.

You do recognize your extreme hypocrisy here, right? How about we simply demand unbiased investigators in our federal police agencies?

There are plenty of texts and emails I think every discerning voter – regardless of party or political persuasion – should see. I hope all this information is soon made public.

Why in the world would you object to voters scrutinizing the actions of our federal police force? It wasn't long ago that leftists had a healthy distrust of Fed.gov. Is the desire for a huge, central government that can control people that important to you guys now?

And nope, not a 'party' guy. They pander way too much to religious zealots for my liking; I'd describe myself more of a conservative, libertarian leaning individual.

I think both parties should be deeply scrutinized by an objective, non-biased media. Unfortunately, we have way too many Democratic Party operatives posing as journalists for mainstream news organizations, and far too many leftists are uninterested in learning the truth if it harms Team Blue.

So, are you a 'party' guy yourself?

 

I do. This investigation should play out. But I realize that if no Russian collusion is discovered, leftists will simply dismiss the results.

Outstanding! Finally, a link to bolster a point your are making.

I'm well aware of this investigation, and it's not an FBI investigation, it's an investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (while I appreciate the link, you should read what you are linking so you don't make simple mistakes like this, it harms your debate performance).

That said, you are aware that the main focus of this investigation is the FBI's possible mishandling of the Hillary email investigation?

"Nearly a year later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s wide-ranging review of the FBI and Justice’s work in the politically-charged Clinton case now looms as a potential landmine for Russia special counsel Robert Mueller."

The article speculates Horowitz's report on the handling of the Hillary email scandal will discredit Mueller's investigation, as there is no place for political bias in any FBI investigation.

Here's another article that goes more much more in-depth than the somewhat dumbed-down USA Today piece about the inspector general's investigation:

"The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday said it would probe a Federal Bureau of Investigation decision to announce an inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails shortly before the November presidential election, a move she has blamed as a factor in her defeat."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tion-decisions-on-clinton-email-idUSKBN14W2NT

Horowitz is investigating everything from Comey interjecting himself into the last two weeks of the campaign to FBI and DOJ personnel fixing the investigation so Hillary would not be charged with multiple crimes.

I'm willing to accept the results of this investigation.

How about you?

(Hey, this is fun, right!)

 

So, how's your texts conspiracy theory today? Still a big zero? Yet your faith is still unshaken. Imagine that.

Strawman. Congressional oversight is very different thing from a Republican witch hunt. You're asking for the latter. You might want to explain why the Democrats are completely shut out of this "oversight" that you claim is so vital.

Sure. And that's not a problem, any more than Mueller and Comey being staunch Republicans is a problem. What is a problem is the anti-democrat witch hunt that pushed McCabe out. That was Stalinism in action, and you seem to support it.

No. Bias would require biased actions against Trump or a Demcorat. As that didn't happen, no bias.

There's no problem with it. You and the TheParty have just recently created this fictional standard that says no law enforcement person is allowed to have a political opinion, unless it's a Republican political opinion. Never before has the nation had such a standard. In contrast, we liberals are find with lawmakers having political opinions. We're non-partisan, while you're rabidly partisan.

I agree, the extreme Republican politicization of the FBI is bad. Do you think that Comey deliberately swinging the election for the Republicans was a bad thing? Do you think that the NY Field Office leaking faked anti-Clinton stories to Guiliani was a bad thing? If you can't, you've lost all credibility here.

To clarify: Again, that's you projecting your life philosophy on to the ethical people. I've never done such a thing, while you depend entirely on the tactic.

As long as their results were backed up by the facts, yes. You just don't seem to get that we are not like you.

You do recognize your projection, right? If anyone wants to know what you're guilty of, they only need see what you're accusing liberals of.

We do. Well, liberals do. In contrast, you demand only Republican party apparatchiks serve.

When you start demanding that Democrats get an equal say in these investigations, I'll believe your phony claims that you just want the truth. As it is, you appear to want to hide the truth and create a fake reality.