Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

We have more evidence of Bigfoot.

 

Do you think normal American politicians suddenly became pro-dictatorship, looking to minimize federal law enforcement this year? Or do you think it is at all possible with their connections and jobs, they've seen some **** that has them very concerned?

 

How is it that you're able to apply this logic to Republican politicians but not to the FBI or special counsel? What if the FBI has seen some **** from Trump and his cronies that has them very concerned?

 

I'm just asking a question but I'll entertain your question. The simple answer is that the FBI has seen some **** and they've done nothing about it. DNC corruption, tarmac meeting, they stopped investigating email gate, just seems to me that they have seen **** but they pick and choose who to go after and when to stop. Most of those had way more evidence than what has been produces so far on the Russia Election Collusion.

I've answer yours, now answer my question.

 

I say we get Trump a long haired wig and breast implants. That way all of those #LockHerUp bumper stickers don't go to waste.

 

So you see meetings as a sufficient evidence for Clinton but a plethora of meetings after lying and stating those meetings never occured for Trump isn't sufficient evidence in the court of Ipaman.

I find you funny. You think private correspondences that were illegally obtained and released to the public holds signficantly more weight in terms of evidence than private correspondences that haven't been leaked and is currently being held by FBI investigators.

It kinda shows that one side is doing this for propaganda reasons(steady stream of releases to the public right before election) vs an actual criminal investigation based in actual merit.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel for a president you keep on repeating that you don't support .

 

That's not an actual answer, that's a "wha wha what about Hillary?" Fox News style response. Hillary was investigated for years by Republican led committees and they did nothing, you have no idea what else is out there that hasn't been made public about the current Russia investigation. Maybe there's nothing, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that what has been produced so far is all that there is. As far as your question, there are plenty of House nut jobs so it's not surprising that there are some who are willing to purge agencies because of what they perceive as political bias. Look at Jim Jordan for a great example of this, that guy would be perfectly fine declaring Trump supreme leader. I don't give much credibility to what some whacko in the House has to say.

 

I don't think that an unbiased person could look at the way the FBI handled the Hillary Clinton investigation along with the things said by those targeting Trump and believe that there doesn't need to be a "purge" in the FBI. It's VERY clear that it is a partisan organization and they are incapable of doing their job when there is a political angle to the investigation. When you have FBI agents editing letters acquitting politicians that they personally are donors to for crimes there is conclusive proof that they are guilty of....and other agents talking about "insurance policies" if their candidate loses a presidential election...I mean, yeah the FBI sounds like it needs a purge.

 

@fchowd0311 @Anticope okay... you guys are right, the repubs have changed their ideology and are trying to usher in an authoritarian dictatorship. Plausible.

 

You do know that this FBI agent had text messages with negative comments in regards to Hillary and Bernie right? You do know that the 'insurance policy' text taken within context has nothing to do with a literal plan.

You are either trolling or unhinged if you think that merits a purging especially if the one culprit was removed from his position.

Their goal is to stay in power. If that means sucking the dick of a president that will rubber stamp their bills, they couldn't give a **** how disengenous and authoritarian their defending of the adminstration is.

 

You conveniently ignored what I said and just started punching a strawman. Anyways, the Republican Party has had an authoritarian streak going on for a while, it's just coming more and more out into the open now tha we have an Erdogan wannabe as president. Purging the FBI because of a perceived political bias is a perfect example of this. The Republicans don't want unbiased objective leadership at the FBI, they want yes men who will go after their political opponents while conveniently ignoring their own wrongdoings.

 

Both parties are currently being run by their respective authoritarian wings.....it's just that partisans can't see that they are doing the exact same as those they are criticizing.

Purging the FBI due to them being compromised by partisans is the right thing to do. It needs to be as apolitical as possible and that can't happen without some serious changes. You don't want that to happen, because you see how your party has benefited from the partisan state of those who run the FBI. It's pretty transparent.

A non partisan FBI would have done their job when it came to the Hillary Clinton investigation and that would have forced an indictment, deep down you probably know that even if you can't admit that. If things were reversed, you'd be the one calling for a purge in the FBI and Republican partisans would be those pushing back against it.....while I'd still be suggesting that a purge is necessary.

 

Man, if the FBI had to limit their pool of potential recruits to individuals who don't believe that Trump is an idiot relative to his position and never vocally expressed that notion amongst their private correspondences, they would have to settle for recruitment quality such as yourself, a high school graduate. I'm certain that their qualifications are signficantly higher.

 

LOL so a "non-partisan" FBI would have recommended Hillary be indicted and completely ignored everything surrounding Trump. This is why you're a joke, well one reason among many.

 

Well you do have House members going on TV to say we need to "Purge" the FBI and DOJ, and using phrases like Coup d'etat.... which is what Authoritarian governments do before their seize control just like Turkey has done just in the past couple years. If the GOP isn't wanting to turn into an authoritarian regime, they are doing a sh*tty job with optics when they recite from the Authoritarian playbook.

However....

I will say that those few House members who are on the Trump train are in the minority for now, but that could change especially now that Mueller is poking around the RNC and its activities last year that had Paul Ryan overseeing it's activities around elections like the one in Florida where the GOP candidate was actively using Russian stolen DNC info against the Dem candidate.

Most Republicans just simply believe in small government, conservative social values, and the Constitution (or at least their interpretation of it). They don't want the US to have purged institutions, and consolidate all the power to a maniac like Trump. Its just that the US landscape has changed, and instead of taking Rience Priebus' analysis in 2013 of how the GOP should change with the changing demographics, their party went the opposite way and they are more unpopular then ever because of it.

Their backs are against the wall, and they will many well meaning people will do terrible things to stay in power as long as they can... even go on TV and recite from the Authoritarian playbook that tries to convince the American people that keeping Trump in power is actually good for the country.

 

if it had been the military conducting the investigation the military would have been the recipient of the shaming from trump and associates. It's what they do. They expect everyone to bow down.
"we will rebuild our military bigger and better like the 1940s but more tremendous, think u. s army and soviet red army all in one. The military today is soft. can you believe they allowed obama to wear a bomber jacket?"

 

A non-partisan FBI would have recommended Hillary be indicted and would have investigated Trump. I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that, but you managed to fail.

If they found anything when they investigated trump, they'd recommend indictments based on it. That said, the investigation into Hillary wouldn't be run by political donors to her campaign and the Trump investigation wouldn't be run by Hillary donors that are outspoken Trump critics. That's how a non-partisan FBI is supposed to function. When you want to run a non-partisan organization, you have to work to limit the number of strongly partisan individuals in your organization and ensure that those who are strongly partisan aren't involved in investigations that are political in nature. All things that should be obvious.

 

FBI Director, Christopher Wray, registered republican (appointed by donald trump, R). Previously Assistant Attorney General (appointed by George W. Bush, R). Confirmed 92-5 by the republican majority Senate.

Acting FBI Director: Rod Rosenstein, registered republican (appointed Acting Director by donald trump, R), previously Deputy General (appointed by donald trump, R), previously US Attorney (appointed by George W. Bush, R).

Previous FBI Director, James Comey, registered republican (appointed by Barack Obama, D), previously Deputy Attorney General (appointed by George W. Bush, R).

Special Investigator Robert Mueller, registered republican (appointed by donald trump, R), previously FBI Director, appointed by George W. Bush, R and extended by Barack Obama, D).

Somehow trump supporters believe FBI leadership is partisan in favor of Democrats.

 

LMFAO

 

Wonder how they could have gotten that impression after FBI leadership managed to make the Hillary case go away despite conclusive evidence of guilt (the speech that ended the investigation being edited by a Hillary donor before Comey was given permission to give the speech) and the meetings about "insurance policies" if Hillary loses....