The FBI is trying to sway the election.

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
More and more reports are coming out that the New York office of the FBI is trying to influence the election. What is your opinion?

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
As regards the Friday Surprise ("We're investigating, but it may not be important"), they HAD to know how incendiary that would be -- and what our dear friends the Republicans are like, especially with Mussolini Lite trying to win the White House. They broke all precedent and protocol. Horrible.

Duh.

Derec

Contributor
They should have charged her during the initial investigation. But then Bill had his back of the plane convo with Loretta.

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
They should have charged her during the initial investigation. But then Bill had his back of the plane convo with Loretta.

What charge?

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
They should have charged her during the initial investigation. But then Bill had his back of the plane convo with Loretta.

What charge?

Duh. Being Hillary Clinton.

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
More and more reports are coming out that the New York office of the FBI is trying to influence the election. What is your opinion?
Do you mean some FBI leadership, or some rank and file agents?

fast

Contributor
Duh. Being Hillary Clinton.
Well, that would definitely be guilty as charged then
I disagree. She's not guilty (guilty, being the point of contention) of being Hillary Clinton, but the only reason I bring it up is because of your highly expressed confidence--saying definitely.

She is Hillary Clinton, but there's no guilt. The logic is similar in vein to why we should sometimes disagree with a charge of failure when someone doesn't do something. For instance, not stopping at a stop light when it's red is a failure ... a failure to stop; in that instance, one didn't stop and it's a failure; but the inverse isn't always true, as not doing something isn't necessarily a failure. I didn't look after your child this weekend, but that was not a failure on my part, as I never had the responsibility to do so.

If I commit a crime, then I'm guilty of doing what I did, but if I do something and it's not a crime, then although I did what I did, I'm not guilty of doing what I did--even though I did what I did. That doesn't invoke guilt anymore than not doing something automatically invokes a failure.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Well, that would definitely be guilty as charged then
I disagree. She's not guilty (guilty, being the point of contention) of being Hillary Clinton, but the only reason I bring it up is because of your highly expressed confidence--saying definitely.

She is Hillary Clinton, but there's no guilt. The logic is similar in vein to why we should sometimes disagree with a charge of failure when someone doesn't do something. For instance, not stopping at a stop light when it's red is a failure ... a failure to stop; in that instance, one didn't stop and it's a failure; but the inverse isn't always true, as not doing something isn't necessarily a failure. I didn't look after your child this weekend, but that was not a failure on my part, as I never had the responsibility to do so.

If I commit a crime, then I'm guilty of doing what I did, but if I do something and it's not a crime, then although I did what I did, I'm not guilty of doing what I did--even though I did what I did. That doesn't invoke guilt anymore than not doing something automatically invokes a failure.

Explaining the joke just makes it so much funnier. Thank you.

fast

Contributor
More and more reports are coming out that the New York office of the FBI is trying to influence the election. What is your opinion?
My opinion is that the FBI is not trying to influence the election. A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent.

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
More and more reports are coming out that the New York office of the FBI is trying to influence the election. What is your opinion?
Do you mean some FBI leadership, or some rank and file agents?

I left the question open for differing opinions. What do you think? Rank and flie? Leadership? A Giuliani drug-induced conspiracy?

marc

Veteran Member
More and more reports are coming out that the New York office of the FBI is trying to influence the election. What is your opinion?
My opinion is that the FBI is not trying to influence the election. A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent.

Well since the same person was against talking about Trump's possible links with Russian influence, because it was too close to election day, it seems more likely the effects were foreseen, and intended.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
My opinion is that the FBI is not trying to influence the election. A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent.

Well since the same person was against talking about Trump's possible links with Russian influence, because it was too close to election day, it seems more likely the effects were foreseen, and intended.

Indeed. And even if the problem is incompetence rather than malice, then there is still a problem.

fast

Contributor
My opinion is that the FBI is not trying to influence the election. A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent.

Well since the same person was against talking about Trump's possible links with Russian influence, because it was too close to election day, it seems more likely the effects were foreseen, and intended.
It does not seem more likely. There were election timing concerns for both the Russian disclosure issue and the the email discovery issue. The fact that lips were not as tight about one as the other doesn't imply bias or unfairness. What seems to be the case is that there were sufficient reasons to justify his actions for one and not the other.

Staff member

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Do you mean some FBI leadership, or some rank and file agents?

I left the question open for differing opinions. What do you think? Rank and flie? Leadership? A Giuliani drug-induced conspiracy?

My guess is that Comey is not trying to influence the election but that he was left with no choice but to continue the investigation after FBI agents briefed him on what they found in Wiener's laptop.

I think there are quite a few FBI agents that are resentful that Hillary Clinton was treated differently to other people, so they want her treated the same as any ordinary person. But as fast said, "A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent."

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
My opinion is that the FBI is not trying to influence the election. A consequence (unforeseen or otherwise) doesn't imply intent.

Well since the same person was against talking about Trump's possible links with Russian influence, because it was too close to election day, it seems more likely the effects were foreseen, and intended.

It would appear they know they have no evidence about the claims of Trump and possible "Russian influence" but that they have strong evidence against Hillary Clinton.
We might find out in time. If it turns out they have strong evidence against Trump and nothing against Clinton, as she claims, then it will look very odd, and even corrupt. But if it turns out they have nothing on Trump and Russia but daming evidence against Clinton then it will look more understandable.

My guess would be it is the latter, and Comey will be able to say..."I tried to warn you"

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
One can take into account that the NYPD have already looked at emails from the laptop.
Reports are they found plenty before handing the laptop to the FBI

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

Maybe Putin put the emails on Wieners laptop?

blastula

Contributor
Will, do you often have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy?

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Will, do you often have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy?

Are you having trouble posting something other than a lame insult?
Is your life so dull you don't have anything better to do?

You can do better than that. Time to lift your game

blastula

Contributor
It was a serious question. In what reality is Erik Prince a credible news source?

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
It was a serious question.
No it was not.
In what reality is Erik Prince a credible news source?
Who cares whether what he says is exactly true in every detail. We know that the NYPD had the laptop for sometime and took it to the FBI. Do you really fantasise they didn't see anything on it?

Anyway I'm going to put you on ignore. All the best

blastula

Contributor
That the NYPD had possession of a laptop isn't proof that Clinton is involved in an underage sex ring. The quotes in the article are nothing more than a product of fevered right wing fantasies. This should go without saying.

funinspace

Don't Panic
No it was not.
In what reality is Erik Prince a credible news source?
Who cares whether what he says is exactly true in every detail.
Holy fuck! Do you know who this POS is? He practically is the personification of US barely contained violence around the world that you seem to not like. Blackwater founder; the Blackwater Nisour Square killings in Baghdad of 17 Iraqi civilians and the serious wounding of 20 more in September 2007; his foundation donated at least $670,000 to the Family Research Council and$531,000 to Focus on the Family; and he is trying to rebuild a new international merc company. But yeah, we should listen to his words on a alt-right smear-them-all website.....