Nope. Not one single liberal is saying any of that. What they are saying is that it is silly to attribute the FBI's mistake in Florida to being distracted by investigating Russian interference. The two had no bearing on each other.
So, like I said, the two sides aren't equal. Another difference is that the Democrats criticism of the FBI was based on an actual event that really happened. It is fine to disagree with their assessment that the happening of the event was a bad thing. That would make the Democrats wrong in their statements but not making attack statements without evidence. And what's funny the very point of Comey reopening the investigation during the closing days of the election actually goes to disprove Trump's allegation that the FBI was out to get him.
No, they weren't. They got away with it for years with it being covered up until they were finally exposed by an IG investigation. Now sure, once that IG investigation exposed the bias, unprofessionalism, and likely corruption they removed the person that got caught....but that doesn't make it okay knowing that without that IG investigation, they'd have just covered it up.
They tried that with trying to eliminate bump stocks. But the nra and their ilk didn’t even want that? It makes so much sense to ban devices like that. That converts guns into automatic weapons. Tell me why the people on the right and nra are against that?
They've been banned in a lot of places already, but again, this kind of falls into wasting time talking about things that don't really matter. Would I support a bump stock ban? Of course, IMO they should regulated just the same as fully automatic weapons but that still has nothing to do with school shootings.
I don't care if it is banned... here's the dirty secret. You can bump fire a semi auto with your finger. Benecio Del Torro does it with a pistol in the new Sicario 2 trailer. Back to the shooting in Florida. Here is what I want to see. The FBI has admitted they did not follow protocol. I want the agent or agents that did not follow protocol fired, and I want a video of them carrying their box out of their offices just like we had with Enron people getting laid off. I don't want to hear some guy was allowed to retire early. I want accountability. I am so sick of bureaucracies handing out justice except when it is their own butt on the line.
The IG uncovered unprofessionalism. It is hard to say that it uncovered bias since they trashed Hillary in their texts as much as they trashed Trump. Unless You want to say it was a bias against both Trump and Hillary that was exposed.
Given that the same people helped ensure Hillary wouldn't get indicted on the evidence of felonies that were uncovered during their investigation, I tihink it's fairly obvious that they were biased when you put it all together. They weren't talking about contingencies if Hillary was elected now were they?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/16/andrew-pollack-grieving-parkland-father-ripped-tru/ Classy Trump derangers.
Ok if that’s the case let’s limit high compacity maginizines to 5 rounds. Make it harder for people who want their guns to be converted to fully automatic
Now wonder how the parents of a victim of the Sandy Hook massacre feels about our President having praise for a man who denies their children are dead and part of a conspiracy. I don't recall but I don't believe you've ever been fauxraged(new word, hybrid of 'false' and 'outrage') by that. At least you never posted about it.
They aren't going to indict someone if they know they have no chance of conviction. That was their judgment. You are entitled to disagree with their judgment but that doesn't mean they are corrupt or biased. That is especially true given that their comments about Hillary were never meant to be released and expressed their feelings they would share only with each other. Pair that with the announcement of reopening the investigation against here while not saying anything about the investigation into members of Trump's team wouldn't show a pattern of bias.
No it wasn't, they had her dead to rights. Had they merely done their job and recommended indictment after finding incontrovertible evidence of her guilt then her people would have been begging for a plea deal in order to avoid time behind bars. There is no case for her innocence and they knew it. They were using this in order to gain political advancement upon her winning the presidency which was all but a foregone conclusion at the point they were conspiring to make the case go away. If the same thing happened where there was that much evidence of Trump's guilt of felonies and the DOJ conspired to make it go away, you'd have a VERY different opinion of this.
That's your judgment and not the professionals at the FBI. You can have all the crackpot theories you want about why they didn't indict her, but you have no evidence about it at all. It's just what feel has to be the reason. If there was proof of a crime that I feel they could prosecute against Trump and they didn't I would have questions. I wouldn't make up reasons why they didn't prosecute and act like they were foregone conclusions or facts.
It's not really crackpot theories though, there's no other valid explanation why the FBI would take that action after finding indisputable evidence of serious crimes. It was an open and shut case that they chose to make go away....there's no way you can spin that. It was a calculated political move that didn't pan out.
There is definitely a case to be made that they wouldn't have won a prosecution on the case. It's been made on these boards many times. You haven't really provided us with some stellar law background that you have. Certainly, you haven't provided one that trumps the folks at the FBI and DoJ. They made a different decision than you would have made. But there is no pattern of bias of these Republicans who are running and have run the FBI to help Hillary Clinton. Them making a decision different than the one you made isn't really evidence of bias. The report that they did make was still critical of Hillary.
It really hasn't been made here, we've just had people say "nuh uh" when confronted with the facts and precedents related to the case. Also, it's not about making a different decision than I would have made, they made a different decision than they would have made if not for political corruption. They had indisputable evidence of felonies and they swept it under the rug because they thought she would win the presidency and she would owe them big time which would advance their careers. Instead it was a miscalculation that cost them their careers.
