Reasons Why F.B.I. and D.O.J. are corrupt

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-agent-says-biden-transition-team-secret-service-were-tipped-off-on-plans-to-interview-hunter-biden

This is just one example of why the F.B.I. and D.O.J. are considered corrupt by the majority of Americans.

Just like the whistleblowers, 20 year F.B.I. agent under oath gave testimony the Biden team and Secret Service was tipped off the I.R.S. was going to interview Hunter Biden. The interview then never happened.

[hollodero]

I might be misremembering, but didn't it happen quite often that such sensitive interviews were announced in advance? I seem to remember that whenever someone of team Trump was up for interrogation, the media already knew about it before the fact.
And especially with secret service, knowing about upcoming obligations seems to make sense. They need to know where their client will have to be to keep up protection.

Not that I dismiss the overall notion entirely. There are some things surrounding the Hunter investigation that look a bit weird to me too.

[*Nately120*]

People voted for Trump in 2016 to lock up Hillary and people voted against Trump in 2020 to lock him up. Fairness doesn't factor into things.

People want Trump locked up.

[Luvnit2]

(08-19-2023, 01:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: People voted for Trump in 2016 to lock up Hillary and people voted against Trump in 2020 to lock him up. Fairness doesn't factor into things.  

People want Trump locked up.

Even Democratic operative Comey said HRC was guilty of crimes, yet no indictments. Yet, Trump was targeted by Comey soon after he won the election. They used an unverified Dossier to hire a special counsel. Now after thorough investigations, we know Brennan prepped Obama, Joe Biden Comey and Lover boy Storck that the Dossier was created by the HRC campaign to counter her being accused of obstructing justice and mishandling classified documents.

Fast forward to 2023, Trump is accused of obstruction of justice and mishandling classified documents. See the irony, the Democrat HRC is given a free pass while the Republican Donald Trump is prosecuted first by saying he colluded with Russia (proven 100% false and no evidence to even start a collusion claim) and now for you guessed it obstructing justice and mishandling of classified documents. The Democrat HRC was caught red handed stealing and storing classified documents a home server the Chinese hacked. Then while under subpoena, she had someone with no clearance to handle classified documents destroy 33,000 emails with bleach bit, then she instructed all electronic devices destroyed. They used hammers.

Again, we see the F.B.I. and justice department is compromised. In my opinion, they should all be locked up for treason starting with James Comey. But, no they will attempt to lock up Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

[*pally*]

Reason #1-they investigate people Luvnit supports who under no circumstances will believe that there is evidence of crimes

[Dill]

(08-19-2023, 01:52 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Even Democratic operative Comey said HRC was guilty of crimes, yet no indictments. Yet, Trump was targeted by Comey soon after he won the election. They used an unverified Dossier to hire a special counsel. Now after thorough investigations, we know Brennan prepped Obama, Joe Biden Comey and Lover boy Storck that the Dossier was created by the HRC campaign to counter her being accused of obstructing justice and mishandling classified documents.

Fast forward to 2023, Trump is accused of obstruction of justice and mishandling classified documents. See the irony, the Democrat HRC is given a free pass while the Republican Donald Trump is prosecuted first by saying he colluded with Russia (proven 100% false and no evidence to even start a collusion claim) and now for you guessed it obstructing justice and mishandling of classified documents. The Democrat HRC was caught red handed stealing and storing classified documents a home server the Chinese hacked. Then while under subpoena, she had someone with no clearance to handle classified documents destroy 33,000 emails with bleach bit, then she instructed all electronic devices destroyed. They used hammers.

Again, we see the F.B.I. and justice department is compromised. In my opinion, they should all be locked up for treason starting with James Comey. But, no they will attempt to lock up Trump or anyone associated with Trump.

LOL this is like "50 First Dates."

Comey said HRC was "reckless" with classified emails but not enough evidence, especially INTENT, to create a prosecutable case. She was not waving documents in front of reporters that she knew she shouldn't have, or storing them in her closet, or lying to the FBI about retaining and moving them. And then this corrupt FBI head in the Dems' pocket dropped her polls by 3 percentage points before the election by announcing he'd reopened an investigation into her laptop. (Dems are leery of voting for people who might be criminals.) That's your idea of a "free pass." See the irony? 

Sigh . . . the Durham Report--assigned to a lifelong Republican by a lifelong Republican AG who used his office to protect Trump--agreed that there was evidence to open a preliminary investigation. He disagreed that it should have gone beyond that. Others with similar expertise and access disagreed with the Durham, who had been tasked to get "dirt" on the FBI and Dems. No one on the GOP side has explained why the FBI should not be monitoring a campaign filled with people eliciting and responding to contact with Russian spies.

Neither the Mueller Report not the heavily redacted IG report nor the Durham report say that an "unverified dossier"--which predicted Russian hacking and more--triggered the FBI investigation into the Trump election team. And no on "opened an investigation into Trump" until he obstructed justice--a crime which the Mueller Report established but for which he was never punished. 

HRC was not "stealing" documents. She was using a home server for email. She legally separated the 33,000 personal emails, which were finally destroyed by a person in Colorado whom she'd probably never met. (You called him a "staff member" a few weeks ago, when you got this wrong for many the 35th time.) 
Too many errors to correct here. And you are misusing the word "treason." (Where is Michaelsean when you need him!? I just can't do all the work.) 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-19-2023, 02:31 PM)pally Wrote: Reason #1-they investigate people Luvnit supports who under no circumstances will believe that there is evidence of crimes

Do you really think that if Trump had his own personal Email server and washed it while under subpoena before turning it over that you wouldn't be screaming he's guilty otherwise what's he got to hide?  Be honest and stop it with the double standards.

[Dill]

(08-19-2023, 06:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you really think that if Trump had his own personal Email server and washed it while under subpoena before turning it over that you wouldn't be screaming he's guilty otherwise what's he got to hide?  Be honest and stop it with the double standards.

If Trump had been legally allowed to sort the emails himself, and then they were deleted by someone a thousand miles away not on his staff, on orders given before any subpoena, I really don't see a legal ground for action there. All those emails were, in any case, potentially recoverable from other accounts. 

So to sort out the "double standard" more quickly, a question--

If you wanted to prosecute Hillary, how would you proceed? What arguments would you anticipate from her defense, and what would you say to convince a jury? 

[samhain]

(08-19-2023, 06:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you really think that if Trump had his own personal Email server and washed it while under subpoena before turning it over that you wouldn't be screaming he's guilty otherwise what's he got to hide?  Be honest and stop it with the double standards.

Maybe.  At this point he's staring down so many charges that there's not really a need to pick a battle that minor.  

I honestly don't give a single shit about any charge other than the one relating to election interference.  I don't care if he cheated on his wife.  Don't care if he paid a prostitute to shut up.  I don't care how much money he bilks his followers out of, legally or otherwise.  I honestly don't even care what he did with the Saudis from a business standpoint while in office.  I have some concern over the documents, but that really depends on what kind of material he made off with and why he thought it was a good idea.  Frankly, I wouldn't want to put an ex-POTUS in jail for any of that, save proof of him selling military secrets or something of that magnitude.  

I want them to nail him to the wall if they can prove he tried to overturn an election.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-19-2023, 06:30 PM)Dill Wrote: If Trump had been legally allowed to sort the emails himself, and then they were deleted by someone a thousand miles away not on his staff, on orders given before any subpoena, I really don't see a legal ground for action there. All those emails were, in any case, potentially recoverable from other accounts. 

So to sort out the "double standard" more quickly, a question--

If you wanted to prosecute Hillary, how would you proceed? What arguments would you anticipate from her defense, and what would you say to convince a jury? 

Except no one from the Legal team read those emails to determine if they were work related or not. They used a generic search. IE anything from a .gov, or certain people and so on.

After a year of FBI investigations, guess how many those 33k the FBI recovered of those deleted emails that actually ended up being work related? 17k.. that's just over half of all of those deleted emails.  So again, stop with the double standards

[Dill]

(08-19-2023, 09:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Except no one from the Legal team read those emails to determine if they were work related or not. They used a generic search. IE anything from a .gov, or certain people and so on.

After a year of FBI investigations, guess how many those 33k the FBI recovered of those deleted emails that actually ended up being work related? 17k.. that's just over half of all of those deleted emails.  So again, stop with the double standards

Er, which "legal team"? Clinton had the authority to determine herself which emails were work related.  Do you have a link which sorts out the recovered emails as you describe? 

Also, we're still short of a double standard. Remember that the emails were discovered during the last Benghazi investigation, which was itself a perfect example of weaponized government. The second perfect example, actually.  And you've not addressed the fact that Comey announced that he had re-opened the investigation a week before the election. How is that a double standard? 

Most importantly, you've not answered my question. How would you prepare a legal case against HRC? 

That's the quickest way to de-Hannity the issue.

Your job is to prove that she intentionally broke the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-20-2023, 12:43 AM)Dill Wrote: Er, which "legal team"? Clinton had the authority to determine herself which emails were work related.  Do you have a link which sorts out the recovered emails as you describe? 

Also, we're still short of a double standard. Remember that the emails were discovered during the last Benghazi investigation, which was itself a perfect example of weaponized government. The second perfect example, actually.  And you've not addressed the fact that Comey announced that he had re-opened the investigation a week before the election. How is that a double standard? 

Most importantly, you've not answered my question. How would you prepare a legal case against HRC? 

That's the quickest way to de-Hannity the issue.

Your job is to prove that she intentionally broke the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308



"To determine which emails were work-related, a member of Clinton’s legal team did four things: she automatically deemed any email sent from or to a .gov and .mil address as related to work; she searched the tens of thousands of emails for names of senior State Department officials, lawmakers, foreign leaders and other government officials; she conducted a keyword search for work-related terms; and she looked at the sender, recipient and "subject" of every email for other potentially work-related emails, but she did not read the contents of those emails.



.....


However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said."





I don't have access to what those emails are about, but i do know that there was 3 classified as top secret, and one confidential of those that were deleted. I'm not a lawyer but even i smell BS. Her answer about e-mails being washed before turning them over to the FBI was nothing more than a smart ass comment. "What with a cloth or something?" She's just flat out playing stupid.

Also how long had she been in a government position and not know the meaning of ©??  Again, playing stupid.

One thing we could do if we know all of the criteria that was used to "sort" work/personal, bounce it against those deleted and see how they sort out. If they sort out under work, then we could point out that they were deleted intentionally. That would be a good first step.

but i really don't care about all of that, what i care about is that many of you didn't hold her responsible to the same level that you are pushing with Trump.

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 02:33 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said."

I don't have access to what those emails are about, but i do know that there was 3 classified as top secret, and one confidential of those that were deleted. I'm not a lawyer but even i smell BS. Her answer about e-mails being washed before turning them over to the FBI was nothing more than a smart ass comment. "What with a cloth or something?" She's just flat out playing stupid.

Also how long had she been in a government position and not know the meaning of ©??  Again, playing stupid.

One thing we could do if we know all of the criteria that was used to "sort" work/personal, bounce it against those deleted and see how they sort out. If they sort out under work, then we could point out that they were deleted intentionally. That would be a good first step.

but i really don't care about all of that, what i care about is that many of you didn't hold her responsible to the same level that you are pushing with Trump.

"Many of them" is not 17 k. 

And again, so far as I know you are referring to the three long email chains which had classified material buried in them--some classified retroactively. That's been known since 2015. 

And you've got nothing prosecutable even if you prove some work emails were "intentionally" deleted during a mass assessment of thousands. Best you can get from that is a minor violation of the Records Act. There was no effort on Clinton's part to hoard documents, keep them as trophies, and expose them to reporters and house guests, or to lie about having them. She clearly had no interest in keeping anything or showing what she had to anyone outside the government--the critical threshold for prosecution. Everyone agrees that her handling of the emails was "reckless." That's not always prosecutable.

And again your whole premise, that HRC is not held to the same level of responsibility, depends on ignoring the basic differences in context and intent here. We only know about the emails because of the most partisan and shrill series of Congressional investigation in history (until the current Biden investigation). That's not favoritism.

Trump had actual physical documents that he intentionally retained to keep--top secret at that, still a danger to national security. We know about them not because of some partisan BS Congressional investigation, but because the National Archives was trying to get them back for a year. Any other person would have been arrested for trying to keep them. Trump had every opportunity to return those documents and refused to, deflecting request after request. Then after a subpoena he turned some over and attempted to hide the rest. When the FBI had to search his residence to finally get them, he went public with a BS claim that the documents were his, and that as president he could de-classify documents just by thinking it--nevermind that the documents weren't his in the first place, de-classified or not. 

So back the question of how you would prosecute--Trump's case looks like a slam dunk here. He willfully retained critical top secret information and waved it in front of people without clearance, and who knows what else. He willfully defied a subpoena to retain them. Now other people are also being prosecuted for helping him hide and retain evidence, and to eliminate proof thereof. That's a conspiracy, and quite beyond "reckless." 

[CJD]

Luvnit has successfully turned this politics forum on a Bengals message board into a fox news live feed.

It seems like all he does is go to Fox News' website each day and re-post each of their stories as they're written onto this forum.

[GreenDragon]

(08-19-2023, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-agent-says-biden-transition-team-secret-service-were-tipped-off-on-plans-to-interview-hunter-biden

This is just one example of why the F.B.I. and D.O.J. are considered corrupt by the majority of Americans.

Just like the whistleblowers, 20 year F.B.I. agent under oath gave testimony the Biden team and Secret Service was tipped off the I.R.S. was going to interview Hunter Biden. The interview then never happened.

"the majority of Americans". Funny. I don't remember a poll being given to ALL Americans. 

[GreenDragon]

Just curious. This happened in 2020. Who was in charge in 2020?

[*pally*]

(08-20-2023, 12:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Luvnit has successfully turned this politics forum on a Bengals message board into a fox news live feed.

It seems like all he does is go to Fox News' website each day and re-post each of their stories as they're written onto this forum.

well Fox News is the light and the truth.....or so he keeps telling us

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-poll-indictments-2023-08-20/

Insanely cultish. pic.twitter.com/9J3aBjuG8B

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 20, 2023

[GreenDragon]

(08-19-2023, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-agent-says-biden-transition-team-secret-service-were-tipped-off-on-plans-to-interview-hunter-biden

This is just one example of why the F.B.I. and D.O.J. are considered corrupt by the majority of Americans.

Just like the whistleblowers, 20 year F.B.I. agent under oath gave testimony the Biden team and Secret Service was tipped off the I.R.S. was going to interview Hunter Biden. The interview then never happened.

Who was in charge in 2020?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-20-2023, 10:56 AM)Dill Wrote: "Many of them" is not 17 k. 

And again, so far as I know you are referring to the three long email chains which had classified material buried in them--some classified retroactively. That's been known since 2015. 

And you've got nothing prosecutable even if you prove some work emails were "intentionally" deleted during a mass assessment of thousands. Best you can get from that is a minor violation of the Records Act. There was no effort on Clinton's part to hoard documents, keep them as trophies, and expose them to reporters and house guests, or to lie about having them. She clearly had no interest in keeping anything or showing what she had to anyone outside the government--the critical threshold for prosecution. Everyone agrees that her handling of the emails was "reckless." That's not always prosecutable.

And again your whole premise, that HRC is not held to the same level of responsibility, depends on ignoring the basic differences in context and intent here. We only know about the emails because of the most partisan and shrill series of Congressional investigation in history (until the current Biden investigation). That's not favoritism.

Trump had actual physical documents that he intentionally retained to keep--top secret at that, still a danger to national security. We know about them not because of some partisan BS Congressional investigation, but because the National Archives was trying to get them back for a year. Any other person would have been arrested for trying to keep them. Trump had every opportunity to return those documents and refused to, deflecting request after request. Then after a subpoena he turned some over and attempted to hide the rest. When the FBI had to search his residence to finally get them, he went public with a BS claim that the documents were his, and that as president he could de-classify documents just by thinking it--nevermind that the documents weren't his in the first place, de-classified or not. 

So back the question of how you would prosecute--Trump's case looks like a slam dunk here. He willfully retained critical top secret information and waved it in front of people without clearance, and who knows what else. He willfully defied a subpoena to retain them. Now other people are also being prosecuted for helping him hide and retain evidence, and to eliminate proof thereof. That's a conspiracy, and quite beyond "reckless." 

17k of those deleted and not turned over WERE work related, intent isn't that important, it's a violation of the subpoena period and a mishandling of © documents as well and she wasn't even a VP or POTUS. One can only imagine her handling of them since she was "so stupid" to not know better had she been a POTUS.

How do you know she didn't share them with anyone that wasn't supposed to know? You got the insider tips on that or just taking her at her word for it? If you are taking her for her word, then why won't you take the USSCJ and his Billionaire friend word for it when they said no cases were discussed on their vacations?

Doing the wash would be like Trump burning the Mars-A-Lago storage room and saying Oops, and you wouldn't believe it wasn't intentional.

Biden has documents in his home that had not been de-classified from his time as VP and while we are at it, let's go after Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama as well. Find out just how many mis-handle documents and make sure that everyone gets hammered to the wall that did.

Go on, you are intent on setting a new precedent just to nail Trump, so get 'em all cowboy!
Biden (and any future POTUS's) better watch out when they leave office. If the other party wins, they will be coming for them.

I know Trump wasn't very smart about things, but you better watch out how this is handled cause it's setting a Precedent that Can and Will be used against each POTUS going forward as well.

[masonbengals fan]

(08-19-2023, 06:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you really think that if Trump had his own personal Email server and washed it while under subpoena before turning it over that you wouldn't be screaming he's guilty otherwise what's he got to hide?  Be honest and stop it with the double standards.

 If Trump were to say he loves to breathe oxygen, some here would hold their breath till they passed out.