The Soapbox

hoolstoptheheels

Joined: 01/04/2001 Posts: 26971
Likes: 34214


Ok, but you are exactly what you complain about. I mean exactly.


You see scandal here, in an investigative decision reached by the FBI, based on many things, but most importantly, based on a tip from an allied intel agency. You see political wrongdoing, but somehow, during the final months and weeks of the election, the FBI under a dem admin publicized - twice - the investigation it was conducting into the dem candidate, but never said word one about its investigation into Russia, clearly not benefiting the dem candidate. Many Trumpies (not sure if you are among them) complain bitterly that Obama didn't do more beginning in 2014, but at the same time, feel it necessary to investigate the investigators who did get things started in 2016 (but never said so until after the election, erring on the side of not appearing to tip scales in favor of the dem). Still, you see scandal.

You see what you want to see, politically - wrongdoing REQUIRING AN INVESTIGATION!!! while ridiculing and demeaning all the many dem assertions about probable cause into a Russian-Trump effort to illegally impact the election. I do understand the political motivations that Trumpies can point to with that. What you are insisting on here is exactly the same. The FBI certainly is allowed to get a warrant and set wiretaps based on intel received from an ally, or other evidence it deems worthy of further investigation. Kind of what it is in business to do.

You're entitled to your opinion, but IMO, you are no less a witch hunter than the most ferocious anti-Trumpies have been. Probably more IMO, but of course my biases enter into that too. But I'll tell you this - I would happily bet you a friendly beer, payable when one day we should happen to meet, that the investigation you are hoping to see will produce nowhere near the number of indictments that the Mueller probe has produced already (and with 14 investigations ongoing, there could be more, so I'd propose our bet include those in the count as well).

If there never is an investigation, which I consider a strong possibility, then we'll just each buy our own beers when we hang out and laugh about the good times.

(In response to this post by hoothat)

Posted: 04/23/2019 at 1:19PM



+1

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
  I’m unfamiliar with this. Do you have any examples? ** -- WahooMatt05 04/23/2019 08:47AM
  That’s different, you tell em DAN! ** -- TomKazanski 04/23/2019 12:06PM
  The clown Kazanski certain'y diesn't ** -- WaxHoo 04/23/2019 4:05PM
  There are NOT countless others. There were -- 111Balz 04/23/2019 09:47AM
  Color me shocked ** -- TomKazanski 04/23/2019 08:52AM
  Seems there is no risk to noncompliance -- WaxHoo 04/23/2019 08:40AM
  Please go case by case with Obama, and I might agree with -- HoosWillWin 04/23/2019 08:31AM
  The Republicans ditched Nixon ** -- Hoo TV 04/23/2019 08:35AM
  Serioulsy? ** -- WaxHoo 04/23/2019 08:04AM

Notice: Trying to get property 'queue' of non-object in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781
vm307