Clinton and Obama on Illegal Immigration & Border

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhpK--yMRhg

The inspector general report covered the F.B.I.’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and was anxiously awaited by Mr. Trump. It concluded that Mr. Comey was insubordinate and broke with longstanding policy in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. But it found no evidence that Mr. Comey showed political bias in his oversight of the investigation. The report made no accusations of criminal wrongdoing.

In his first public comments on the report, Mr. Trump said in a pair of tweets early Friday that he had done “a great service” for the American people by firing Mr. Comey last year.

The president’s initial stated reasoning for firing the F.B.I. director was that he believed Mr. Comey had mishandled the Clinton investigation.

The president has given other justifications for the firing, including that he did it in order to relieve pressure from the F.B.I.’s inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia.
...
Even though the Justice Department report had nothing to do with the special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible ties with Russia, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani, said on Thursday that Mr. Mueller’s investigation should be suspended. Mr. Giuliani also predicted that Mr. Strzok would be in jail in the coming days.

Mr. Trump said he did not have plans to suspend the Mueller investigation, and he repeated his contention that the inquiry was being conducted by people with conflicts of interest.

“Now, here’s the good news — I did nothing wrong, there was no collusion, there was no obstruction,” Mr. Trump said on Friday. “The I.G. report yesterday went a long way to show that. And I think that the Mueller investigation has been totally discredited.”

NY Times.

In other words, James Comey is criticised in the report, in relation to the decisions that he made concerning the 'Clinton email server' matter. There is nothing in it which exonerates, or accuses, Trump of anything. It's not even about that. But even though the report explicitly says that it made no finding of FBI political interference with the Campaign, Trump and his lawyer are saying that it shows that there was FBI political interference with the campaign. Even though the report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the campaign, Trump and his lawyer says that it discredits the Mueller investigation.

I don't think he understands what the report is about. I don't think he understands what the Mueller investigation is about. When he says it's a 'witch hunt', he really means it. He knows there is danger, there is trouble, and he's lunging at it to the best of his ability. Which is not much. — Wayfarer

I call your analysis very, very naive.

The extent of Trump's legal advisory team will be somewhat astronomical for his team not to understand.

(and yes, of course he has a team. It's what got him there)

Trump himself is not a dummy.

If he was a dummy he wouldn't be the threat his opponents are treating him as.



I think it suits him to let all this play out and die by it's own sword because although he has the authority to end it, that would not look good politically.

He will leave it up to lawyers and courts which will, I suspect, bring all sorts of matters up because, if anything goes to court, 'discovery' provisions come into play and his opponents know this.

That is why his opponents, such as Muller and co, are playing politics in the hope things stay buried until the next election in the hope that negative publicity, using the anti trump media, will convince voters that "Russia, Russia, Russia" was real.

Trump himself is not a dummy. — raza

There’s your problem in a nutshell. His own advisors have been pleading with him not say anything about it. He ignores them, and they leave. Anyway, Raza, I’m just sounding off here, because it is both saddening and sickening to see Trump trashing the office of the Presidency and jeopardising the political stability of the world so please don’t bother to try and set me straight. Try reading some actual news sources and educating yourself on what’s happening.

There’s your problem in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

My "problem" is I disagree with you. So effectively I appear to be your problem.

I guess i am a "deplorable".

Try reading some actual news sources and educating yourself on what’s happening — Wayfarer

An example of passive aggression (which is why I responded in kind previously but it appears I was censored).

I think it suits him to let all this play out and die by it's own sword because although he has the authority to end it, that would not look good politically. — raza

The President of a company has the authority to fire anyone but can still be guilty of wrongful termination. Trump has the authority to end the investigation but can still be guilty of obstruction of justice.

That is why his opponents, such as Muller and co — raza

Mueller is only Trump’s “opponent” if Trump is guilty of some crime under Mueller’s remit.

The President of a company has the authority to fire anyone but can still be guilty of wrongful termination. Trump has the authority to end the investigation but can still be guilty of obstruction of justice. — Michael

My point is his "opposition" won't want to test it because, in my opinion, it is politics.

That's just an opinion I don't share because of the corruption I perceive.

Law officers do, from time to time, corrupt their offices whether they are cops on the street or the higher ups.

The higher ups are not angels just because they have ascended to those positions.

This should be hardly profound news.

Mueller is only Trump’s “opponent” if Trump is guilty of some crime under Mueller’s remit — Michael

Law officers do, from time to time, corrupt their offices whether they are cops on the street or the higher ups.

The higher ups are not angels just because they have ascended to those positions.

This should be hardly profound news.

(Just reorganizing my response to include what I was responding to, for communication clarity)

That's just an opinion I don't share because of the corruption I perceive. — raza

So that’s all we need to defend our accusations? Then I suppose I could just say that I perceive Trump firing Comey because of “the Russia thing” as obstruction of justice and perceive the meeting with the lawyer at Trump Tower as at least an intent to coordinate with the Russian government.

Nothing has gone before any court. So yeah, it is all conjecture, media manipulation or otherwise, and politics.

Trump, as you know, has not even been charged with anything relating to Russia yet alone had to defend anything in court about it.

They will play their games and that will be that. Time will tell whether either camp was worth defending.

Why the double standard? You’re free to accuse Mueller of being corrupt (with no evidence but your “perception”) and yet whenever Trump or his campaign are accused of anything it’s straight to “but he hasn’t been charged”?

No double standard. Each have different roles. For example, Trump doesn't do investigations.
Yes it is true that I am free to accuse Mueller of corruption because I have become aware of his history and his alliances.

Trump or his campaign are accused of anything it’s straight to “but he hasn’t been charged” — Michael

I think that maybe you are merely holding on to some hope as a consequence of a side you chose not winning that election.

Yes it is true that I am free to accuse Mueller of corruption because I have become aware of his history and his alliances. — raza

OK, then I’m free to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice and members of his campaign of conspiring with the Russian government to violate election law because I have become aware of the things they’ve said and done.

I think that maybe you are merely holding on to some hope as a consequence of a side you chose not winning that election. — raza

And I think that maybe your views about Mueller are clouded by bias.

OK, then I’m free to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice and members of his campaign of conspiring with the Russian government to violate election law because I have become aware of the things they’ve said and done. — Michael

Indeed you are.

Hardly deniable that you are, is it?

But that's politics.

And I think that maybe your views about Mueller are clouded by bias. — Michael

Ii don't deny bias but I have bias for a reason.

Bias is no different to choice. That is all bias really means.

And I think that maybe your views about Mueller are clouded by bias — Michael

If the investigation itself wasn't so clouded by political bias then I would have little to feel biased about.

If the investigation itself wasn't so clouded by political bias then I would have little to feel biased about. — raza

Is it? Or is it just the media and politicians (on both sides) who are biased in their talking of it? What bias has Mueller shown?

Is it? Or is it just the media and politicians (on both sides) who are biased in their talking of it? What bias has Mueller shown? — Michael

You tell me how often the word "bias" comes up in the text below. I didn't write it.

>>>>>>Though Horowitz suggests these texts, among one that says, “We’ll stop [Trump from becoming president],” are indicative of bias and “a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” his conclusion is that their views did not affect the investigation.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,” the report reads.

Strzok’s lawyer released statements regarding the report, calling it “critically flawed” for saying that it could not rule out, with confidence, that Strzok’s potential biases “may have been a cause of the FBI’s failure.”<<<<<<<<

We’re talking about Mueller’s investigation of coordination with Russia, not the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s email server. Mueller actually removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after finding out about those texts, which I think undermines your accusation that Mueller is corrupt. He appears to want a fair investigation.

What bias has Mueller shown? — Michael

Should I emphasize it for you?

>>>>>>Strzok’s lawyer released statements regarding the report, calling it “critically flawed” for saying that it could not rule out, with confidence, that Strzok’s potential biases “may have been a cause of the FBI’s failure.”<<<<<<<<

Now why would this FBI's lawyer be worried that his client's "POTENTIAL BIASES" was not ruled out BY THE IG REPORT as maybe being a "cause of the FBI's failure?

We’re talking about Mueller’s investigation of coordination with Russia, not the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s email server. Mueller actually removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after finding out about those texts, which I think undermines your accusation that Mueller is corrupt. He appears to want a fair investigation. — Michael

The investigation is tainted.
Also, the investigation has SO FAR not included in any report of Russia/Trump campaign collusion.

The games continue.....

FBI and CIA agents talk smack about politicians they don't like all the time. They did it with Bush, they did it with Obama, they did it with Trump. The only surprise here is that more of them weren't talking smack about Trump considering what a dufus he is. So, you've got a couple of FBI agents who turns out don't like the president. Quick, call Hannity and turn it into a conspiracy. Only a complete idiot would take any of this seriously. What a yawn. :yawn:

And Mueller is the messiah. Fine.

That's called a strawman. Look it up. You might learn something about...philosophy. But I doubt you will, so I'll explain it to you. I didn't say Mueller was the messiah. I didn't even mention Mueller in my comment. Understand? Or would you like me to perhaps write it on the back of your MAGA hat for easy reference?