Trust... do we really not trust the FBI ..

[Dick Hosmer]

Having now read the memo, all six pages, there is very little to it, besides confirmation of the rumors floated over the last few weeks. Anyone expecting REALLY juicy stuff is going to be sorely disappointed - NO great national secrets are revealed, but the Mueller probe appears now to be based on pretty shaky ground.

The foregoing comment does not, however, diminish in the least that what apparently went (and is still going) on at the top level of the FBI and DOJ.

[togor]

Dick would you entertain even the slightest possibility that the memo cherry-picked a set of facts to invite the audience (perhaps an audience of one person in particular) to come to an intended conclusion?

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick would you entertain even the slightest possibility that the memo cherry-picked a set of facts to invite the audience (perhaps an audience of one person in particular) to come to an intended conclusion?

Sure, that's possible, but if ANY of it is true, that is TOO MUCH. The woman with the scales is supposed to be BLIND. Can you REALLY sit/squat/whatever there and tell me that things are OK, and that we should just ignore the memo?

[Sandpebble]

I dunno guys... but I think we can trust these people to do the job honestly regardless of their personal view point. ..

After all... we expect... and on the whole get this from Judges, Law Enforcement, military etc etc.....

I mean... Jesus.... do you actually believe Mueller was handed the job and said ... "Great... I'll get that SOB over those country club dues he screwed me out of ?.....

.... maybe Mueller should have imediately doubled down when the country club dues story was released and tweeted "Fake News "

Never liked Mcain much.... but he's right this time ....... we're doing Putins bidding allright.... once Anti American KGB..... always Anti American KGB

[S.A. Boggs]

I dunno guys... but I think we can trust these people to do the job honestly regardless of their personal view point. ..

After all... we expect... and on the whole get this from Judges, Law Enforcement, military etc etc.....

I mean... Jesus.... do you actually believe Mueller was handed the job and said ... "Great... I'll get that SOB over those country club dues he screwed me out of ?.....

.... maybe Mueller should have imediately doubled down when the country club dues story was released and tweeted "Fake News "

Never liked Mcain much.... but he's right this time ....... we're doing Putins bidding allright.... once Anti American KGB..... always Anti American KGB

Once anti-American National Socialist, always anti-American National Socialist...just paraphraseing.
Sam

[Johnny P]

J. Edgar Hoover worked at his own discretion with no oversight and had so much dirt on everyone that no one dared cross him, and he carried his investigative authority way beyond what he was authorized to do. Only after his death was his abuse of power brought out, and oversight of the FBI was brought about. Like most agencies, the FBI works from the top down, and not vice versa.

[Sandpebble]

Just paraphrasing ? ... why.. don't ya have anything intelligent to say ? .......

[Jiminvirginia]

Nope. Did not know them and judging by your tone young man I dont think I would want to.

[togor]

Sure, that's possible, but if ANY of it is true, that is TOO MUCH. The woman with the scales is supposed to be BLIND. Can you REALLY sit/squat/whatever there and tell me that things are OK, and that we should just ignore the memo?

I'd point out that the scale the lady holds is supposed to have two sides to it.

[bruce]

Re: "I dunno guys..." With respect, no. These people cannot be trusted to do the job honestly regardless of their personal view. We do not get this from judges, law enforcement. The military has no relevance to law enforcement. This response may seem harsh. It certainly does not offer much room for debate. Regret that things are at such a state. But, the reputation of the FBI and the Justice Dept. were squandered by the previous administration. Why would anyone now believe that either is all of a sudden going to act even handedly? JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Tommy]

“ famous but ineifficient”, AKA the FBI. No I don’t trust the leadership at all. The street agents, yes I do!

Tommy

[Dick Hosmer]

I'd point out that the scale the lady holds is supposed to have two sides to it.

You're dodging the issue. Are you happy with the present leadership of the FBI and DOJ - yes, or no?

[S.A. Boggs]

Just paraphrasing ? ... why.. don't ya have anything intelligent to say ? .......

If I did it would be above your pay grade to understand!
Sam

[togor]

You're dodging the issue. Are you happy with the present leadership of the FBI and DOJ - yes, or no?

First, not dodging the issue. My point was that the memo was a political message put out by one side. A side you identify with strongly, as it happens, so you are very much inclined to take the message at face value. The lady was your analogy, and I gave an answer building off of it with an economy of words. But nonetheless, the memo is exactly what it claims the DOJ was doing--moving the chains of justice (onto football analogies now) for political motivations.

As for the present leadership of the DOJ? Rosenstein has a tough job to do, but I doubt I could do it better. Sessions is a man of questionable motives in my view, like the mirror image of Holder, but he appears to have the tiniest shred of integrity still intact. I doubt that survives long service under Trump. FBI? Comey made the mistake of getting larger than life. I disliked his glib assurances on 60 Minutes years ago that the government needed a back door into everyone's cell phones. Beyond that I didn't know too much about him. Mueller? I haven't seen anything but feeble partisan attacks on Mueller by people (including some here) who don't bring as much as 1/100th the juice to anything in life as Mueller has. So I consider the source. Wray? I don't know anything about him, can't say.

You won't like it when I say this, but if you're an honest man, you'll admit truth to it. One of the good things about Obama is that he didn't bring all of this legal baggage with him to the office (and don't waste my time with Birther sh*t anyone). The number of times he spoke 1-on-1 with an FBI director was down to a handful of occasions, and for only obviously appropriate reasons. He tried to keep the White House mostly away from the FBI, which is as it should be in my opinion. By contrast, Clinton had the baggage that comes with the Clintonian need to take liberties with the rules. And Trump has his total need for secrecy in Trump Inc operations, including laying heavy NDAs on his people, keeping his taxes concealed, hiding his past business practices. Add to that his obvious attraction to Slavic culture and this unexplained pro-Russian bias.

Clintonian rule-bending, versus Trumpian secrecy, both throwing up a fog, trying to make it hard for the law enforcement (the "referees" in our system) to do their job. As a rule, if someone is leaning hard on the ref, it means they're trying to cheat. I respect the fact that Obama didn't feel the need to do that.

So to wrap it up, given a choice between trusting the professionals in the DOJ and FBI or the politicians who are constantly bombarded with cash in exchange for the hope of services rendered, and who have only a finite period to "strike-it-rich" when the political opportunity is there, to whom would you think I give the nod?

[S.A. Boggs]

First, not dodging the issue. My point was that the memo was a political message put out by one side. A side you identify with strongly, as it happens, so you are very much inclined to take the message at face value. The lady was your analogy, and I gave an answer building off of it with an economy of words. But nonetheless, the memo is exactly what it claims the DOJ was doing--moving the chains of justice (onto football analogies now) for political motivations.

As for the present leadership of the DOJ? Rosenstein has a tough job to do, but I doubt I could do it better. Sessions is a man of questionable motives in my view, like the mirror image of Holder, but he appears to have the tiniest shred of integrity still intact. I doubt that survives long service under Trump. FBI? Comey made the mistake of getting larger than life. I disliked his glib assurances on 60 Minutes years ago that the government needed a back door into everyone's cell phones. Beyond that I didn't know too much about him. Mueller? I haven't seen anything but feeble partisan attacks on Mueller by people (including some here) who don't bring as much as 1/100th the juice to anything in life as Mueller has. So I consider the source. Wray? I don't know anything about him, can't say.

You won't like it when I say this, but if you're an honest man, you'll admit truth to it. One of the good things about Obama is that he didn't bring all of this legal baggage with him to the office (and don't waste my time with Birther sh*t anyone). The number of times he spoke 1-on-1 with an FBI director was down to a handful of occasions, and for only obviously appropriate reasons. He tried to keep the White House mostly away from the FBI, which is as it should be in my opinion. By contrast, Clinton had the baggage that comes with the Clintonian need to take liberties with the rules. And Trump has his total need for secrecy in Trump Inc operations, including laying heavy NDAs on his people, keeping his taxes concealed, hiding his past business practices. Add to that his obvious attraction to Slavic culture and this unexplained pro-Russian bias.

Clintonian rule-bending, versus Trumpian secrecy, both throwing up a fog, trying to make it hard for the law enforcement (the "referees" in our system) to do their job. As a rule, if someone is leaning hard on the ref, it means they're trying to cheat. I respect the fact that Obama didn't feel the need to do that.

So to wrap it up, given a choice between trusting the professionals in the DOJ and FBI or the politicians who are constantly bombarded with cash in exchange for the hope of services rendered, and who have only a finite period to "strike-it-rich" when the political opportunity is there, to whom would you think I give the nod?

To answer your last question, the one you could afford to buy?
Sam