a reply to: Sillyolme
I don’t post every day. I very rarely comment. This situation, the subject of this OP, seems crazy to me. You, on the other hand, comment quite a
bit. So what, in your mind, did the IG report get wrong, and from what authority do you make this assertion?
I read the report. It took a long time. To me it seemed well written, and its tone was impartial. It pointed out findings that were troublesome, such
as some individuals in the DOJ, specifically connected to the FBI, expressing political bias using official channels. It allowed for the possibility
that the individuals in question did not abuse their position, but merely communicated personal attitudes via the channels they were accustomed to,
that is to say their mistake was not using their personal SMS and instead using government property. This I see as forgivable. The report seemed to
indicate that the individuals in question actually regarded the Trump-Russia collusion question to be a non-issue, i.e. “there’s no ‘there’
there.” This didn’t change their personal feelings and hoped the “insurance policy” would gum up the works enough to stymie Trumps policy
This is where I think you are. I’ve read a lot of your comments, and for me it’s fine that you feel this way. What I don’t like is when you
comment specifically to derail, with accusatory statements and broad generalizations. This is exactly the sort of thing that you rail against
sometimes. Here we have a former top FBI lawyer saying he was waved off prosecuting an individual because...reasons? Why isn’t that interesting to
you? Doesn’t that trip your wtf sensor, as it parallels the removal of the phrase “gross negligence” from the Hillary email server
I know, I know, The buttery males trope. It gets tiring. But the common retort is “she had how many investigations which found nothing” and here
we have a top legal expert wanting to prosecute, having a case, and being told to back off. Doesn’t that, if true, negate the “how many”
defense? That, plus the tarmac meeting, you get these pieces of a puzzle that looks like corruption. Don’t you think that sort of corruption
deserves attention? That some people are above the law?
I hope you read this.
Look. I like you. You’re obviously whipcrack smart, and a successful businesswoman. You must know that palm greasing happens in business, which is
low level corruption. Do you think about what happens when that practice enters the federal level, and becomes legalized through “charitable
donations” to “humanitarian organizations” that operate with 80% operating costs? Don’t you wonder why since her defeat in ‘16 that
donations to the CF have crashed? These are the things that I think about.
Here’s my bottom line: if Clinton gets a pass on mishandling classified information because she lacked intent, then Trump should get a pass on
hiring people with shady pasts but impressive track records (probably because they were shady) but in the meantime, Trump has a country to run, and
nobody is well-served by disrupting the running of the country based upon partisan ideals. There’s another election next year. If you hate it, fix