He's still protecting Hillary and the DNC. He thinks he's untouchable so he feigns responsibility.
The problem is that these people were not sloppy. They did it all intentionally to undo the will of the people and destroy a presidency. They knew Hillary had sanctioned and paid for the Steele research and that the DNC was involved. For it to get that far it was necessary that Obama be leading it.
And frankly the destruction of the presidency was intentionally carried out to hide the corruption of Obama's administration personnel in cohort with the DNC. The corrupt acts by his administration personnel in the Ukraine are prime examples. The DNC collaboration with a foreign country to interfere with the election of 2016 provides proof that the DNC committed corrupt acts. That they sent the DNC server to a foreign country is extremely revealing.
At least three former intelligence community operators have written opinion pieces about the staggering sloppiness revealed by the OIG report.
They point out many specific instances of the sloppiness as indicators of a shoddy plan composed and implemented by desk drivers, rather than seasoned pro operators.
They are unanimous in claiming the evidence shows a coordinated effort (conspiracy).
And they are unanimous in declaring sloppiness as the flaw that invited the reveal of the entire corrupt endeavor.
They used a large group of individuals to each go against policy in such a crafty manner that pinpointing a crime on one specific person is difficult.
In that regard, they were not sloppy. They knew the law, they knew what they could get away with and they knew how to spread out their plan so no one would go to jail.
They used a large group of individuals to each go against policy in such a crafty manner that pinpointing a crime on one specific person is difficult.
It depends on how you define ’difficult’. Kevin Clinesmith might disagree with you.
In that regard, they were not sloppy.
Wrong. Ask Clinesmith. Ask Comey. Ask McCabe.
They knew the law, theythoughtthey knew what they could get away with and theythoughtthey knew how to spread out their plan so no one would go to jail.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There is a difference between exposure and being charged. (Before you say they're not mutually exclusive, you're right, they're not always. But they CAN be.) And in the land of Comey, Clinton, Biden etc, exposure has become pretty damn close to exoneration.
Exposure, in this case, is good for optics and for votes. But that's all it's good for. When the MSM starts shifting towards trying to get the public to just wrap their concerns up by having talking heads feign outrage and then apologize, it's a sign that exposure was the only thing that was going to come of exposing FISA abuse.
When the MSM starts shifting towards trying to get the public to just wrap their concerns up by having talking heads feign outrage and then apologize, it's a sign that exposure was the only thing that was going to come of exposing FISA abuse.
uhuh
That is a very plausible prediction, if you believe MSM will dictate indictment decisions. Many people do. I am not among those.
No matter, we’ll all find out in due time.
As a side note, just look at the journey you have taken in this thread. You initiated contact with me by claiming I was wrong. Stating there was no sloppiness involved, but rather a group of crafty conspirators wise enough to exploit the system in a manner that ensures ”no one will go to jail.”
Now you seem to have abandoned that critical stance in favor of a new position that MSM will somehow ensure the same outcome.
That is a strawman reply. There have been sloppy acts, but as a whole this had nothing to do with sloppyness. Those were intentional acts and the evidence supports it, along with solid support of the evidence in the DOJ IG report.
Yours is a defense of their crimes. The problem with it is that it argues something other than my point which allows others to forget the facts and react with emotion instead of disciplined reason.
That's pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.
He's still protecting Hillary and the DNC. He thinks he's untouchable so he feigns responsibility.
The problem is that these people were not sloppy. They did it all intentionally to undo the will of the people and destroy a presidency. They knew Hillary had sanctioned and paid for the Steele research and that the DNC was involved. For it to get that far it was necessary that Obama be leading it.
And frankly the destruction of the presidency was intentionally carried out to hide the corruption of Obama's administration personnel in cohort with the DNC. The corrupt acts by his administration personnel in the Ukraine are prime examples. The DNC collaboration with a foreign country to interfere with the election of 2016 provides proof that the DNC committed corrupt acts. That they sent the DNC server to a foreign country is extremely revealing.
Wrong.
At least three former intelligence community operators have written opinion pieces about the staggering sloppiness revealed by the OIG report.
They point out many specific instances of the sloppiness as indicators of a shoddy plan composed and implemented by desk drivers, rather than seasoned pro operators.
They are unanimous in claiming the evidence shows a coordinated effort (conspiracy).
And they are unanimous in declaring sloppiness as the flaw that invited the reveal of the entire corrupt endeavor.
None of it is sloppiness. None of it is “errors.” They were all deliberate criminal acts. Anything else is spin.
Wrong
Wrong
Possibly.
Wrong.
What are you, a CNN anchor?
They used a large group of individuals to each go against policy in such a crafty manner that pinpointing a crime on one specific person is difficult.
In that regard, they were not sloppy. They knew the law, they knew what they could get away with and they knew how to spread out their plan so no one would go to jail.
Hell, Fox News is spelling it out for you: http://magaimg.net/img/a28o.png
"Systemic" means no one goes to jail.
It depends on how you define ’difficult’. Kevin Clinesmith might disagree with you.
Wrong. Ask Clinesmith. Ask Comey. Ask McCabe.
ftfy
Hell, a former IC operative is spelling it out for you.
Wrong.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There is a difference between exposure and being charged. (Before you say they're not mutually exclusive, you're right, they're not always. But they CAN be.) And in the land of Comey, Clinton, Biden etc, exposure has become pretty damn close to exoneration.
Exposure, in this case, is good for optics and for votes. But that's all it's good for. When the MSM starts shifting towards trying to get the public to just wrap their concerns up by having talking heads feign outrage and then apologize, it's a sign that exposure was the only thing that was going to come of exposing FISA abuse.
uhuh
That is a very plausible prediction, if you believe MSM will dictate indictment decisions. Many people do. I am not among those.
No matter, we’ll all find out in due time.
As a side note, just look at the journey you have taken in this thread. You initiated contact with me by claiming I was wrong. Stating there was no sloppiness involved, but rather a group of crafty conspirators wise enough to exploit the system in a manner that ensures ”no one will go to jail.”
Now you seem to have abandoned that critical stance in favor of a new position that MSM will somehow ensure the same outcome.
You appear to be quite the traveler.
You're still missing my point. Has it ever occurred to you that exposure doesn't matter to them and it never did?
That is a strawman reply. There have been sloppy acts, but as a whole this had nothing to do with sloppyness. Those were intentional acts and the evidence supports it, along with solid support of the evidence in the DOJ IG report.
Yours is a defense of their crimes. The problem with it is that it argues something other than my point which allows others to forget the facts and react with emotion instead of disciplined reason.
That's pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.
Wrong. I defended no crimes because I named no crimes, and I named no crimes because none have been charged.
That’s
pretty muchvery muchWrong.If you read for comprehension here, you can lessen your likelihood of looking silly on the internet.
..."sloppiness" is an excuse, a poor one but it's the only option Intelligence Agencies have left that's why they're using it.