mainstream media

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never heard she lied to the FBI about that. Even the FBI director said there was no reason to conclude she lied to the FBI about anything.

You mean the director of the FBI, who with the DOJ, appears to have had areal rooting interest in the 2016 election?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You mean the director of the FBI, who with the DOJ, appears to have had areal rooting interest in the 2016 election?

The only thing I've seen where the DOJ might have influenced the election was Comey breaking protocol and making a statement on the status of the investigation. This idea of a grand conspiracy to undercut Trump is nonsense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The only thing I've seen where the DOJ might have influenced the election was Comey breaking protocol and making a statement on the status of the investigation. This idea of a grand conspiracy to undercut Trump is nonsense.

none of the texts from lisa page or mccabe or strzok, give you the hint of impropriety. Your concern is applied very very selectively, which of course means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

none of the texts from lisa page or mccabe or strzok, give you the hint of impropriety. Your concern is applied very very selectively, which of course means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think professionals can compartmentalize their personal and work. It was investigated and found there was no influence. Have some respect for law enforcement.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think professionals can compartmentalize their personal and work. It was investigated and found there was no influence. Have some respect for law enforcement.

ok, trump collusion was investigated
much more thoroughly, and determined there was no evidence. so why do you dismiss one, and desperately cling to the other?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok, trump collusion was investigated
much more thoroughly, and determined there was no evidence. so why do you dismiss one, and desperately cling to the other?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collusion isn't a legal standard. We know there was collusion, hell there were face to face meetings they tried to cover up!

The letter only says they didn't find evidence that met the threshold for a charge of criminal conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was no evidence, it means there may not have been enough. There also could be a ton of evidence that's very damning to Trump but not indictable under DOJ guidelines.

Barr's report really just made this entire mess worse, especially the conflict over obstruction. Many say he's a straight shooter, but this letter really looks like it was intended to give Trump cover while they fight to keep the report hidden.

They need to release everything legally permissible soon and let Congress sort things out.