McCabe Fired

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,085
Reaction score
305
Points
83
- I've said many times that I'm all for bringing justice to all the wrong doers, regardless of which side they're on. Where I get frustrated is the unequal application of justice. There's no proof of Trump-Russia collusion, yet we have a team of clearly biased prosecutors, with obvious conflicts of interest investigating everything they can find under the sun, most of which has nothing to do with with Trump-Russia collusion. Conversely we know that the Clinton campaign paid to have Russians provide dirt for the dossier and people seem to shrug, as if that's not a clear & proven example of Clinton-Russia collusion.

- I think most all "conservatives" agree Paul Manafort is a scumbag & I've not really heard anyone complain about him being charged. I think kicking in his door at 5:00am and holding he and his wife at gunpoint was disgusting, but I have no doubt that Manafort failed to register under FARA & I don't doubt for a second he hid some of that money he earned from the IRS. My issue here again, is the unequal application of the law. i.e. Since 1966 the DOJ has only brought charges under FARA 15 times. In the entire history of FARA there's only been one conviction. Failing to file under FARA is the DC equivalent of jaywalking. The standard operating procedure is to tell the individual to register retroactively and it's over. Manafort though got a different kind of justice.

- Conversely, look at the denial from the left about what is going on in the DOJ/FBI/NSA/FISA court. It's already been decided by the NSA, FBI & FISA court that the FBI was illegally submitting FISA applications and that they broke the law by letting private parties access the FISA database. A dozen high ranking FBI/DOJ/FISA judges have been fired, demoted, recused or suddenly resigned and yet we continue to see the absolute denial of any wrongdoing. Andrew McCabe is a perfect example. The FBI recommended immediate dismissal, so Sessions did. Instead of admitting that it must be pretty ugly for the FBI to recommend this type of immediate dismissal of a 23 year FBI exec, they've twisted this into some blood lust by Trump.
Team Sporty and Jammer.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
I'm not going to weigh in on the specifics of this.

I just find it interesting that the "liberals" on this board absolutely believe every left-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every right-wing conspiracy theory.

While the "conservatives" on the board absolutely believe every right-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every left-wing conspiracy theory.

I suspect the "truth" - if we ever get to the truth - will be somewhere in the middle. I suspect some people on the left made mistakes. I suspect some people on the right made mistakes.
And I suspect that - even if presented with a stack of affidavits and sworn statements that stretch to the moon and back - the people on the right will never believe their side did anything wrong, and the people on the left will never believe their side did anything wrong.

And the experiment known as the United States of American slips inexorably toward utter collapse and failure. If we continue on the current path, this country is doomed to failure. And no one will accept responsibility - because "it was the other side's fault."
Let's analyze the conspiracy accusations from each side:

The left accused Trump of conspiring with Russia - we are now going on 2 years of investigating including spying on Trump, the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and no one can point to any proof of Trump and associates conspiring illegally to collude with Russia.

The left has accused Trump of obstruction of justice- a silly charge. Trump is the chief executive in charge of the Justice Department and FBI. He had the right to fire Comey and it has become more obvious since this time that Comey was dirty anyway, he leaked and likely lied to Congress. We know that Comey made the decision on Hillary before he even interviewed her (again from the texts) and we know that he allowed her to testify without being under oath, giving her great latitude in her testimony. Comey only held the final "investigation" when an FBI guy cried foul internally and made McCabe and Comey come clean about the Weiner laptop situation. The investigation into the Weiner laptop was a joke and Hillary was quickly given a clean bill of health.

The right has accused that the FBI help exonerate Hillary in her email probe- We KNOW this is true from the texts between Strzok and Page. You may no know it if you haven't been reading those texts. But the evidence in the texts is clear. Even Rosenstein- who I view with suspicion- recommended Comey be fired for his actions in the probe.

The right has also claimed that the FISA process for spying on Trump associates was not properly and legally done. Again the texts that have gone public (and we only have a small percentage of them) show this to be absolutely true.

If you are reading from sources that don't offer you the opportunity to view these texts at length and if you really want to know what direction this thing took, those sources are available to you. These are not far fetched conspiracy theories that the right is tossing out there. There was a conspiracy against Trump. It did involve collusion with Russia by Hillary and the DNC and it did involve a very small percentage of the FBI- particularly those in high positions who had been compromised by the Obama administration and Hillary.

The deep dark conspiracies that the right does not have proof for- only logic- are the accusations that :

1) the DNC was not hacked. The logic that it was not hacked is that the FBI was never allowed to look at their server and outside analysts have said that it does not look like a hack due to the speed that the information was transmitted (VIPS analysis). Also the recipient, Wikileaks has said it wasn't a Russian hack

2) That Seth Rich was murdered because he was the one who leaked the emails (instead of them being a hack). The case has been ruled a robbery., yet Rich had nothing taken from him and was shot in the back twice. Not exactly the standard robbery. Rich was a Bernie guy and Wikileaks has hinted heavily that Rich was the source of the emails.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
I'm not going to weigh in on the specifics of this.

I just find it interesting that the "liberals" on this board absolutely believe every left-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every right-wing conspiracy theory.

While the "conservatives" on the board absolutely believe every right-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every left-wing conspiracy theory.

I suspect the "truth" - if we ever get to the truth - will be somewhere in the middle. I suspect some people on the left made mistakes. I suspect some people on the right made mistakes.
And I suspect that - even if presented with a stack of affidavits and sworn statements that stretch to the moon and back - the people on the right will never believe their side did anything wrong, and the people on the left will never believe their side did anything wrong.

And the experiment known as the United States of American slips inexorably toward utter collapse and failure. If we continue on the current path, this country is doomed to failure. And no one will accept responsibility - because "it was the other side's fault."
It’s normal for people to view things through their own principles, beliefs, and biases. I don’t think this is much different except with social media and the internet, individuals perceive that their voice is magnified and then contributes to an increasingly loud and contentious public expression.

It may be unhealthy at times, but it is what it is and is our future for better or worse.

I disagree that everyone on either side unanimously sees conspiracies on the other side. For my part, if I’m uncertain or am not buying into a conspiracy against the other side, I just don’t comment on it. If someone proposes a conspiracy theory that I do have an opinion on, I do comment on it.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
The FBI did an internal review of McCabe's actions & recommended his immediate dismissal. Are you saying you don't trust the FBI? Are you saying the FBI is lying? Do tell.

Also, who do you think McCabe was testifying to "under oath"? It wasn't Nunes, Burr, Mueller or Horowitz. Wanna a take a stab at it?
I'm going to need a lot more to go on than the fact that he was firable before I can formulate an informed, appropriate opinion. As of now, it's extremely fishy in both that he had to be fired and in the timing of his firing. I see that your lack of facts regarding the situation hasn't stopped you in the least or made you even cautious from already firming your stance on the issue.

As for being "firable", anyone can always find reason(s) to fire someone if they really, really, really, really, really want to, or if they really, really, really, really have to.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
I'm not going to weigh in on the specifics of this.

I just find it interesting that the "liberals" on this board absolutely believe every left-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every right-wing conspiracy theory.

While the "conservatives" on the board absolutely believe every right-wing conspiracy theory, and dismiss every left-wing conspiracy theory.

I suspect the "truth" - if we ever get to the truth - will be somewhere in the middle. I suspect some people on the left made mistakes. I suspect some people on the right made mistakes.
And I suspect that - even if presented with a stack of affidavits and sworn statements that stretch to the moon and back - the people on the right will never believe their side did anything wrong, and the people on the left will never believe their side did anything wrong.

And the experiment known as the United States of American slips inexorably toward utter collapse and failure. If we continue on the current path, this country is doomed to failure. And no one will accept responsibility - because "it was the other side's fault."
False equivalency and you haven’t been paying attention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
I'm going to need a lot more to go on than the fact that he was firable before I can formulate an informed, appropriate opinion. As of now, it's extremely fishy in both that he had to be fired and in the timing of his firing. I see that your lack of facts regarding the situation hasn't stopped you in the least or made you even cautious from already firming your stance on the issue.

As for being "firable", anyone can always find reason(s) to fire someone if they really, really, really, really, really want to, or if they really, really, really, really have to.
What some are conveniently missing is the GOP has been the primary perpetrators and benefactors of whatever ACTUAL corruption is going on.

Also, people are acting all brand new. There is absolutely nothing new about people under investigation for one thing having crimes exposed and being charged for something else. There is absolutely nothing new about law enforcement agencies over charging (Ray Lewis) or plea bargaining co-conspirators (OJ Simpson & Mike Vick) to get the person they want. The Russian investigation is not over, concluding the outcome is more than a bit premature. Stating it should never have started is more than ludicrous after several people have been caught lying when questioned. Why Lie?

Did the Trump team collude? Undeniable, of course they did. Was it criminal? We have seen no definitive proof of that..... but why would we when the investigation is still going on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
False equivalency and you haven’t been paying attention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We agree.....but for different reasons. If you have a half hour, this is one of the finest overviews of the situation I have seen. It deals at great length with what has gone down these past 18+ months, although there is a lot more to the story than even this excellent article reveals. You may or may not agree with it but it is highly informative if you wish to understand how we arrived at where we are. This article offers the long view from about 5000 feet up- there are myriads of detail, so much more that went down here. The specifics would take hours to explain in one article. It is going to be the subject of a lot of books in years to come.

By the way this appears at National Review, a conservative group of never Trumpers who have heaped all the criticism on him that they can manage.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
What some are conveniently missing is the GOP has been the primary perpetrators and benefactors of whatever ACTUAL corruption is going on.

Also, people are acting all brand new. There is absolutely nothing new about people under investigation for one thing having crimes exposed and being charged for something else. There is absolutely nothing new about law enforcement agencies over charging (Ray Lewis) or plea bargaining co-conspirators (OJ Simpson & Mike Vick) to get the person they want. The Russian investigation is not over, concluding the outcome is more than a bit premature. Stating it should never have started is more than ludicrous after several people have been caught lying when questioned. Why Lie?

Did the Trump team collude? Undeniable, of course they did. Was it criminal? We have seen no definitive proof of that..... but why would we when the investigation is still going on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Please offer some of these proven instances of Trump collusion that you think you have seen to be undeniable (just not proven fully illegal yet).
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
We agree.....but for different reasons. If you have a half hour, this is one of the finest reviews of the situation I have seen. It deals in great detail with what has gone down these past 18+ months, although there is a lot more to the story than even this excellent article reveals. You may or may not agree with it but it is highly informative if you wish to understand how we arrived at where we are.

By the way this appears at National Review, a conservative group of never Trumpers who have heaped all the criticism on him that they can manage.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/
My man, thanks for sharing . Interesting read with some good points. The article by no means describe how we arrived where we are. The same people who are willing to assign guilt to Clinton and even Obama on the evidence provided in the article aren’t even willing to admit an investigation should take place with Trump even with the multiple guilty pleas that have taken place.

I’m willing to except the FBI’s findings for or against even though the FBI may have put Trump in the White House. Are you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Please offer some of these proven instances of Trump collusion that you think you have seen to be undeniable (just not proven fully illegal yet).
Post the definition of the word and that will answer your question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
My man, thanks for sharing . Interesting read with some good points. The article by no means describe how we arrived where we are. The same people who are willing to assign guilt to Clinton and even Obama on the evidence provided in the article aren’t even willing to admit an investigation should take place with Trump even with the multiple guilty pleas that have taken place.

I’m willing to except the FBI’s findings for or against even though the FBI may have put Trump in the White House. Are you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I know how long the article is. Did you read it in full?

You are willing to accept the FBI's findings for or against who?
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
I know how long the article is. Did you read it in full?

You are willing to accept the FBI's findings for or against who?
Yes I read the entire article, it took me about 10 minutes.

FBI charges against any and everyone. If the find that Obama, Clinton or anyone else broke the law or didn’t and gets a conviction or not then that’s what happened. Are you willing to do’s the same?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
The meeting at Trump Tower.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So Donald Trump Jr. meets with someone who says that they have dirt on Hillary. Nothing comes of it and she has no dirt.

You asked for the definition- the dictionary says: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

https://www.google.com/search?q=collusion&oq=collusion&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i60j0l2.9330j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The Trump Tower meeting was secret. It was not illegal and such information if true would not have cheated or deceived others. There is a strong possibility that the Trump Tower meeting was actually a Hillary set up to deceive and frame Trump Jr. considering that Glenn Simpson of Fusion met
with the same Russian lady hours before and the day after the meeting.

I disagree that the Trump Tower meeting was collusion, although it could have led to collusion had something happened. Had the relationship continued and Trump Jr. had dispersed say....a dossier with salacious and unverified information based on the lady's info and then given it to the press and the FBI and had it used to spy on Hillary. That would have been collusion.

Have anything else?
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
So Donald Trump Jr. meets with someone who says that they have dirt on Hillary. Nothing comes of it and she has no dirt.

You asked for the definition- the dictionary says: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

https://www.google.com/search?q=collusion&oq=collusion&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i60j0l2.9330j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The Trump Tower meeting was secret. It was not illegal and such information if true would not have cheated or deceived others. There is a strong possibility that the Trump Tower meeting was actually a Hillary set up to deceive and frame Trump Jr. considering that Glenn Simpson of Fusion met
with the same Russian lady hours before and the day after the meeting.

I disagree that the Trump Tower meeting was collusion, although it could have led to collusion had something happened. Had the relationship continued and Trump Jr. had dispersed say....a dossier with salacious and unverified information based on the lady's info and then given it to the press and the FBI and had it used to spy on Hillary. That would have been collusion.

Have anything else?
Disagree with Webster or Merriam all you want but.....My man, it meets the definition. Collusion in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Here are other examples of collusion:

“Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about talking in April 2016 to a professor with close ties to the Kremlin who told Papadopoulos that Moscow had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The professor told him about thousands of emails the Russians had from the Clinton campaign.

— Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower in June 2016 after being promised "dirt" on Clinton. The campaign later communicated to meeting organizers that they were disappointed they didn't get what they were promised.

— In July 2017, the president and White House advisers put together a misleading statement about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting, saying that it was for the purpose of discussing Russian adoptions.

— The Trump campaign knew through Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign. Then-candidate Trump publicly asked the Russians in July 2016 to hack Clinton and find her "30,000 emails that are missing" from the personal email server she used while secretary of State. WikiLeaks began posting emails from the Clinton campaign in October, just weeks before the November election.

— Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations.”



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Yes I read the entire article, it took me about 10 minutes. LOL!!!

FBI charges against any and everyone. If the find that Obama, Clinton or anyone else broke the law or didn’t and gets a conviction or not then that’s what happened. Are you willing to do’s the same?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's a 15,000 word essay with intense information in it that requires time to digest. The average human being can read about 300 words per minute depending on the content. I call BS. A half hour would have been a very fast read. It was obvious from your explanation of the article that you skimmed portions of it at best, as your comprehension was less than light. If you want to fool yourself- go for it . You didn't fool me.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Disagree with Webster or Merriam all you want but.....My man, it meets the definition. Collusion in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Here are other examples of collusion:

“Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about talking in April 2016 to a professor with close ties to the Kremlin who told Papadopoulos that Moscow had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The professor told him about thousands of emails the Russians had from the Clinton campaign.

There is no accusation in the indictment about collusion. Only that Papdopoulos lied in his testimony. If there was collusion Mueller would have insisted on Papadopoulos confessing to that in return for leniency. There was none.

— Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower in June 2016 after being promised "dirt" on Clinton. The campaign later communicated to meeting organizers that they were disappointed they didn't get what they were promised.

— In July 2017, the president and White House advisers put together a misleading statement about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting, saying that it was for the purpose of discussing Russian adoptions.
And that is correct. It turned out to be about the adoption issue that the Russian lady was pushing. They gave her nothing. She gave them nothing.

— The Trump campaign knew through Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign. Then-candidate Trump publicly asked the Russians in July 2016 to hack Clinton and find her "30,000 emails that are missing" from the personal email server she used while secretary of State. WikiLeaks began posting emails from the Clinton campaign in October, just weeks before the November election.

The Russians weren't the ones who had the emails. But even if they did Papadopoulos allegedly heard this from a professor and nothing ever came of it, nor was this bit player ever asked to seek said emails. Trump's statement was classic Trump trolling and even you know this.

— Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations.”
Nothing Flynn did was illegal and this is normal for incoming administrations. This of course would have nothing to do with colluding with the Russians to win the election because it was after the election.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's it???? That's the stuff you have that we are investigating the President for? That's crazy.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
That's a 15,000 word essay with intense information in it that requires time to digest. The average human being can read about 300 words per minute depending on the content. I call BS. A half hour would have been a very fast read. It was obvious from your explanation of the article that you skimmed portions of it at best, as your comprehension was less than light. If you want to fool yourself- go for it. You didn't fool me.
Well you explanation consisted of “it’s a good read” so how much did you actually read?[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
That's it???? That's the stuff you have that we are investigating the President for? That's crazy.
I know it isn’t a blow job but.....a foreign government messing with the outcome of an election is important to some people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Well you explanation consisted of “it’s a good read” so how much did you actually read?[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The whole thing.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,085
Reaction score
305
Points
83
That's a 15,000 word essay with intense information in it that requires time to digest. The average human being can read about 300 words per minute depending on the content. I call BS. A half hour would have been a very fast read. It was obvious from your explanation of the article that you skimmed portions of it at best, as your comprehension was less than light. If you want to fool yourself- go for it . You didn't fool me.
Team Sporty!
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
I know it isn’t a blow job but.....a foreign government messing with the outcome of an election is important to some people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's exactly why we need to build a wall at the Mexican border!

What about the Clinton dossier- that is collusion that we are certain of - and it meets the dictionary definition.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
That's exactly why we need to build a wall at the Mexican border!

What about the Clinton dossier- that is collusion that we are certain of - and it meets the dictionary definition.
My man, the Russian they met with did not come across from the Mexican boarder.

Clinton dossier? You’re certain about that being collusion but not Trump? You’re such a hypocrite.[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,477
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
My man, the Russian they met with did not come across from the Mexican boarder.

Clinton dossier? You’re certain about that being collusion but not Trump? You’re such a hypocrite.[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You're debating with a human echo chamber. It's admirable but must give you a headache. You can list all of the things worth investigating and all you'll get is "that's it? Now let's talk about the real crimes committed by Hillary."
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
You're debating with a human echo chamber. It's admirable but must give you a headache. You can list all of the things worth investigating and all you'll get is "that's it? Now let's talk about the real crimes committed by Hillary."
He’s entertainment until the walking dead comes on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,678
Reaction score
326
Points
83
I'm going to need a lot more to go on than the fact that he was firable before I can formulate an informed, appropriate opinion. As of now, it's extremely fishy in both that he had to be fired and in the timing of his firing. I see that your lack of facts regarding the situation hasn't stopped you in the least or made you even cautious from already firming your stance on the issue.

As for being "firable", anyone can always find reason(s) to fire someone if they really, really, really, really, really want to, or if they really, really, really, really have to.
Lack of facts? Here are the only facts we need: The IG Michael Horowitz (A Democrat, appointed by Obama) found McCabe was lying under oath & hiding the truth. By law he must report any criminal activity to the FBI immediately. He reported it to the FBI, who did an internal review & recommended immediate dismissal.

My speculation is that for the FBI to fire a high ranking official after 23 years effective immediately, it must have been pretty damn bad. Remember, Horowitz earlier found evidence of criminal wrongdoing against McCabe in the Hillary email scandal, which he also took to the FBI & FBI Director Christopher Wray demoted McCabe the following day. I would speculate that whatever Wray saw there must have been pretty bad as well.

You like to accuse everyone else of being partisan. If you can't admit the basic facts of this case...That it was the FBI who fired McCabe after learning of criminal activity via the IG Michael Horowitz, then how can we even discuss this?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,906
Reaction score
473
Points
83
My man, the Russian they met with did not come across from the Mexican boarder.

Clinton dossier? You’re certain about that being collusion but not Trump? You’re such a hypocrite.[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It’s been posted here ad nauseam, but you refuse to acknowledge.
Clinton/DNC paid law firm>law firm paid Fusion GPS>Fusion GPS paid Steele>Steel paid Russians>Russian made up $hit to give to Steel to give to Fusion GPS to give to Clinton/DNC.

The Clinton campaign & DNC paying other people to pay Russians is still Clinton paying Russians, regardless of how many intermediaries skimmed their share off.
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
It’s been posted here ad nauseam, but you refuse to acknowledge.
Clinton/DNC paid law firm>law firm paid Fusion GPS>Fusion GPS paid Steele>Steel paid Russians>Russian made up $hit to give to Steel to give to Fusion GPS to give to Clinton/DNC.

The Clinton campaign & DNC paying other people to pay Russians is still Clinton paying Russians, regardless of how many intermediaries skimmed their share off.
What am I’m refusing to acknowledge? Reread what I wrote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom