But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

It's not "clear" that the investigation into Hillary was "corrupt." LOL

It's very possible though that people were involved in the investigation that weren't good picks. I'm sure that happens on a lot of jobs in every field of life. Some people make it onto teams that aren't good fits, don't play well in the team, have a bias, etc. Good teams get rid of them and move on. It isn't evidence of corruption.

Point remains, Nunes has no idea whether any of that is true. He hasn't read the underlying evidence presented to support the memo he is going to release. HE HASN'T READ IT. He doesn't want to read it and he is refusing to let anyone else read it. For all he knows the staffers have completely made up the memo he is releasing.

Be honest Bobby..
-You run a team at your business
-You need to file a report for your shareholders
-A vendor gives you 200+ pages of documents/projections for the next year
-You don't read it and ask 2 of your team members to write up a summary
-They write up a summary that scares the pants off of you and makes it look like this vendor is a MAJOR liability so you move to release this information to your shareholders. It will cause panic and will severely damage your vendor and many in your company are unhappy about it
-The vendor then asks if they can come meet with your small team privately to address what they believe to be things that are false, inconsistent, etc. You deny them.
-Your counterpart on the team suggests that you read the evidence because he read it and doesn't interpret it the way your staffers did. You deny him.
-Your counterpart then suggests if you don't want to read the evidence perhaps you should let the rest of the company read the evidence before releasing the memo to shareholders. You deny that.
-Your other team members who have read the evidence won't actually say that they agree with the summary memo your staffers wrote.
-You decide to release this memo that makes your CEO look good but will critically damage your vendor despite all of the above.

Does this seem like a good strategy?

 

... and the GOP hold on power in the short term. It's like a company selling off (important) pieces of itself to hit a quarterly profit goal and temporarily boost its stock. Sad, truly.

 

I don't see what part of this summary can be refuted. Maybe the last point extrapolates based on evidence. Who knows what lurks in the heart of Nunes. He may actually be pretty stupid and think he's doing right and chasing some "black hats" in the FBI or something like that. (White hats? I get confused and also need @Commodore 's expertise on the hats.)

 

I mean, maybe that's not clear to you, but when an investigation uncovers indisputable evidence of serious crimes being committed and they then decide to let the person off the hook, there was corruption involved......and you'd be able to admit that if it was Trump and not Hillary.

Can you imagine how much our friends on the left would be freaking out if they had indisputable evidence of crimes that carried decade long sentences against Trump and the DOJ and FBI simply made the case go away? Hell I wouldn't blame them, I'd be pissed off too if that happened....but those are the same people who are perfectly fine with that scenario playing out when it comes to Hillary and they are the same people clinging to hope that one day they will discover some evidence that Trump is guilty of an actual crime. At this point they'd take anything.

 

Honestly his motivations aren't even relevant. I don't know him, he may be a great guy and a great patriot. Forget that for a moment though and evaluate his decision making here and I don't see how anyone can support it as the smart, logical or appropriate course of action.

I mean at the VERY least, if I was the haed of an intelligence committee and someone gave me a memo that summarized evidence that made it sound like there may be very dubious actors leading a corrupt ring within the FBI and Justice Department I would then say "Whoa. Let me look at this evidence! Let me read some of it for myself." Or when the head of the FBI that was appointed BY THE MAN I AM TRYING TO PROTECT says "Whoa this memo is misleading, let me come talk to you to show you how" I'd say "OK I'll at least hear you out."

That Nunes rebuffs all attempts to provide context including reading the evidence HIMSELF is baffling. He can't even say whether the memo is an accurate portrayal of the evidence, they are just saying it is "alarming." Listen to the members supporting the release. They won't say the memo is accurate, won't say they believe it, (well most won't) are just repeating "The American people deserve to evaluate the contents of the memo for themselves." LOL that is ridiculous!

Imagine me asking a 5th grader that hasn't yet read Animal Farm to evaluate my summary of it and decide whether it's an accurate summary. I won't let them READ Animal Farm, just my summary of it. I could give them a summary of Old MacDonald and they wouldn't know.

 

If I run a team at my business and am looking into a vendor that has a history of cooking the books and my people give me a briefing about a summary of their findings from the vendors documents and projections that suggests that they are cooking the books, I would have a responsibility to release that information to my shareholders before the full report comes out. I'd trust my people over trusting someone trying to spin the situation on the behalf of the vendor simply because they don't like the CEO of the company.

 

Total nonsense.

You might trust your team members but that doesn't mean you would say "I trust you guys so I will refuse to let anyone else see the evidence you are basing your summary on."

In the corporate world if you did that the vendor would sue your ass into oblivion.

I'm here today to make a claim of corruption and improper practices against the following people and their company. I have evidence of it but I have not read it. In lieu of that evidence here is a memo prepared by my staffers. I will not let anyone see the evidence, nor will this memo specifically reference anything from that evidence. It is only meant to provide you with a general overview of this OBVIOUS corruption. I will let the people decide whether any of it is true, of course make that decision without any evidence.

 

What you seem to be ignoring is that the IG is going to release their report no matter what, so this was always going to come out. If the Nunes memo is baseless, we'd know that when the IG releases their findings. Also, while you seem to think the Nunes memo is baseless, that doesn't make much sense given what happened immediately after the FBI director read it.

I give you credit for getting out ahead of this with the spin, but reality sort of contradicts your spin this far.

 

I haven't actually said it's baseless have I? I don't know if it's baseless or not. What I know is that the mean pushing it doesn't know if it's baseless or not and doesn't want anyone else who voted to make it public to know whether it is baseless or not.

As for the IG report...

There is a reason Nunes wants to get out ahead of that. You go first and it doesn't matter what is in that report.

No one will ever be able to unring the bell of accusation that Nunes wants to ring here.

 

Do you honestly think that's what happened?

Here is the reality. So I guess according to your narrative the FBI director saw something incriminating for McCabe and instead of firing him for what would be tampering with a high level federal investigation, he reassigns him? And McCabe refues and just uses his reamaining terminal leave days and retires...

It seems to me the more rational assumption here is that the oppurtunty cost to keep a FBI agent at such a high level for a couple of months when he is going to retire soon anways when the head of the exectuovr branch and members of Congress are trying to play with hint wasn't worth it so he just decided to reassign him for his last remaing couple of months.

 

You have been implying that it is baseless and you continue to do so even when you are pointing out that you never actually said it.

That said, there was clearly enough in the memo to change McCabe's plans immediately after the FBI director read it....but sure, it's just political spin.

 

Lucky for us Nunes was able catch all the black hat activity, and summarize in a tidy 4 page memo....

 

The country should just move on from Hillary. The grammys, the emails, the books, the whole nine. If we didn't give her attention she could quietly retire into the mountains of NY.

 

No I am not implying it is baseless. Again, I don't know. What I am outright saying is that Nunes is not a trustworthy actor in any of this and his actions on this particular issue are ridiculous. I believe that the memo is going to be misleading. Why do I believe that? Because people who have read the memo AND THE EVIDENCE have said that it is misleading and cherry picked. Someone who HASN'T READ THE EVIDENCE says they are wrong.

Even Republicans who support the release of the memo won't, for the most part, actually say it is a full picture of what the evidence said. They won't endorse the findings of the memo.

So really nobody who has seen the evidence is even saying the memo is a complete, fair or accurate representation of the evidence it "summarizes." Just that the memo itself is something the American people should judge the veracity and importance of. Also without reading the evidence.

 

And lose such an important trump tweeting point? What Hillary needs to do is become a political commentator on a cable news network. Then get one or two reality TV shows. Then start up an on-line news channel and call it the Hillary Clinton Channel. Maybe even get Chelsea on a reality TV show or competition like Singing and Dancing with the Stars.

Oh wait, I got confused with Sarah Palin. Never mind...

 

Trump isn't the only one that can't quit Hillary. It's weird to me that liberals are so convinced she SHOULD HAVE WON that they don't recognize how damaging she is to Democrats.

That said, it's more hilarious that Republicans who were annoyed that Obama wouldn't stop talking about Bush after a year in office won't stop talking about Clinton. Who wasn't even the president.

 

I think that's what this really comes down to, you don't trust Nunes because of his political motivations, but you do trust random Democrats despite their political motivations for speaking out against the memo. Also, you do trust those that would be potentially called out by this memo despite the reasons to think they are not trustworthy actors.

In the end, it just comes down to your subjective opinions as to who must be telling the truth and who cannot be telling the truth.....and you say all of this without even knowing what is actually in the memo.

 

You are the Nunes of this board haha. You just clipped a small segment of my post and then extrapolated an entire idea that I never said.

I don't "trust" Democrats or the FBI, I'm not saying they are telling the truth.

On one side you have a person who hasn't read the evidence and on the other side you have a bunch of people who have. The people who have read the evidence aren't asking people to bury the memo, they have asked for context to be given, including allowing people to view the actual evidence not just the memo. The guy on the other side doesn't want any sunlight.

They could ALL be a bunch of liars, but Nunes is the only actively trying to prevent anyone from knowing whether the memo he is releasing is truthful.

 

LOL, let's just wait till the memo is released to start spinning it. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.

 

It is odd that a lot of these supposedly compromised investigators/players were either Republicans and/or appointed by the President himself.

Rod Rosenstein was appointed by Donald Trump. Hell Trump claimed that his decision to dismiss Comey (also a Republican) was based on a memo from Rosenstein. Rod also prosecuted James Cartwright and got a conviction, someone that Obama ultimately decided to pardon. He is a registered Republican. Yet this man is supposedly compromised and biased? Give me a break.

James Comey is a Republican that was appointed by G.W. Bush.

Andrew McCabe last voted in 2016 and voted for a Republican. He also was above board about his wife's political run and specifically requested assistance from the FBI to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. He didn't even have any investigative responsibilities in the Clinton investigation until after his wife lost her election bid. Christopher Wray has repeatedly refused to fire McCabe.

This whole thing is absurd.