CanucksCorner.com Forums

Strangelove wrote:

SKYO wrote:I'm clearly just trolling you SL, allllll that work you spent for nothing mwahahahah.

I like it... you keep setting em up and I'll keep knocking em down bro!

Together we will shove CNN's fake news all the way up with a red-hot poker...

Blob Mckenzie wrote: May as well clean up here. You guys are getting lit the fuck up in hockey talk.

Reefer2 wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Reefer2 wrote: I am Canadian so why would I watch CNN.

Well many Canadians watch CNN.

But my point is... you're a CNN kinda guy.

(you lap up everything mainstream as gospel)

Amirite?

Reefer2 wrote: I don't care about USA news.

UMMMM... you have like 213 posts in this thread bro.

Sigh - no Doc I don't believe much unless I see it with my own 2 eyes. I laugh a lot at people who post links unless it is funny videos, other than that everything else on the internet is mostly useless.

The report explains that Putin was incensed about a series of scandals that embarrassed his government, such as the Panama Papers leak, which revealed (among other things) a secret $2 billion account held by Putin personally. The Russian hacking campaign was designed in part to throw a similar kind of dirt on the United States, which he held responsible for his embarrassment.

“Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia, suggesting he sought to use disclosures to discredit the image of the United States and cast it as hypocritical,” the ODNI report states.

The campaign was designed to disproportionately target Clinton, whom Putin saw as a threat — he blamed her, in particular, for the 2011 anti-government protests in Russia. So the “consistent goals” of the influence campaign, the report says, were “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

As time went on, however, the Russian campaign shifted — evolving into an attempt not just to hurt Clinton but to outright elect Trump. The Kremlin, according to the report, saw Trump as potential ally — someone with the right policy views and the right dealmaking disposition.

Strangelove wrote:^ Yeah Per, damn those Russkies for exposing THE TRUTH.

Per wrote:[The FBI has a policy of not commenting ongoing investigations, and he was told by his superiors to not do so.
Why did he break policy and go against his superiors in a manner that decided the outcome of the election?
I think Vlad knows.

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:^ Yeah Per, damn those Russkies for exposing THE TRUTH.

More like truthiness. They are experts at taking a feather and turning it into a whole chicken coop.
And selective truthiness, at that. Don't think they don't have any dirt on Trump.

It'd also be interesting to know what they have on James Comey.
Juicy pictures? Secret gambling debts?

The FBI has a policy of not commenting ongoing investigations, and he was told by his superiors to not do so.
Why did he break policy and go against his superiors in a manner that decided the outcome of the election?
I think Vlad knows.

Strangelove wrote:

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:^ Yeah Per, damn those Russkies for exposing THE TRUTH.

More like truthiness. They are experts at taking a feather and turning it into a whole chicken coop.
And selective truthiness, at that. Don't think they don't have any dirt on Trump.

It'd also be interesting to know what they have on James Comey.
Juicy pictures? Secret gambling debts?

The FBI has a policy of not commenting ongoing investigations, and he was told by his superiors to not do so.
Why did he break policy and go against his superiors in a manner that decided the outcome of the election?
I think Vlad knows.

Twas the sliminess of Hillary & Co that decided the outcome of the election.

Merely this and nothing more.

My friend, it's time for you to learn to stop worrying and love the Vlad...

Whatever else one might say about the just-concluded 2016 presidential election, one thing is certain: FBI Director James Comey played an outsized and exceptionally inappropriate part. His highly prejudicial announcement on October 28, just eleven days before the election, that he had reopened an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server ensured that the final critical days of the campaign were taken up with innuendos and suppositions set off by his action.
When Comey then announced on November 5, just two days before the election, that upon further review he had again found no basis to believe that Clinton had committed any crime, it only underscored the impropriety of his October 28 announcement. Had he conducted the review in confidence, as Justice Department rules require, the entire matter would have been resolved without interfering with the election. As it was, his October 28 announcement dramatically shifted the trajectory of the campaign, deflected attention from Donald Trump’s own considerable troubles, and inevitably influenced the choices of many early voters.

The first rule Comey disregarded requires law enforcement officials to avoid public comment on ongoing investigations. The Justice Department’s guidelines on “Disclosure of Information Concerning Ongoing Investigations,” set forth in the US Attorneys’ Manual, provide that, as a general matter, officials “shall not respond to questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress.”

The second policy Comey transgressed is even more fundamental. That policy, which has been endorsed by attorney generals of both parties for decades, requires law enforcement officers to avoid filing even completed indictments against candidates for political office within sixty days of an election. As Jamie Gorelick and Larry Thompson, former deputy attorney generals in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations respectively, explained in The Washington Post:
Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.
This policy applies to all elections, from those for local school boards to those for our nation’s highest office. Under this policy, even if the FBI had acquired enough evidence to charge Hillary Clinton formally with knowingly transmitting classified information or otherwise violating criminal law, that fact should not have been made public until after the election. Yet Comey chose to go public, just eleven days before a presidential election, without even a basis for believing that the “new” evidence he had come across was actually new, much less evidence of any crime.
Not only had FBI officials not reviewed the e-mails on Weiner’s computer at the time of Comey’s October 28 announcement. They had not even received a warrant to examine them. (They only got the warrant the following Sunday.) Accordingly, the FBI had no basis for believing that the e-mails offered any evidence of criminal conduct on Clinton’s part. In fact, we now know, they provided no incriminating evidence, and many were simply duplicates of e-mails previously reviewed.