Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Not pivoting at all.  If you are so obtuse in one field, it may explain why you are so obtuse in another.

Again, you cannot directly quote anything I write.

Again, you continue to pretend that 11 straight days of 24/7 negative coverage didn't have an impact on late-breaking voters.

Again, you pretend voter suppression doesn't exist.

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

As for access, you must be going to WSJ a lot because they give everyone about three free views before they ask them to subscribe.

So?

Are you ever going to post a fact-based argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this pivot to the JFK assassination in regard to W. Averell Harriman.

I admit that I have a radical, even revolutionary approach to the Kennedy murder case: I approach it like a standard murder investigation.

We start with a blank tackboard and a rigorous examination of the physical evidence.

One thing cops look for when interviewing witnesses is a person who prevaricates.

When the cops catch someone in a prevarication it makes them highly suspicious.

What is the person trying to hide by prevaricating?

Max Holland, The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

<quote on>

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.  None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

<quote off>

Harriman lied.  There was no meeting of the US Government's top Kremlinologists,

Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe, according to his biography..

George Kennan spent the day quietly at Princeton, according to his biography.

Harriman, Bohlen and Kennan were the top Kremlinologists.

Why did Harriman lie?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Wow, Cliff, you sure do like to say many other people lie.  If I were around you, I think I'd even be afraid to tell you that the sky was blue for fear you'd call me a xxxx too :)

it's a shame Cliff's not in college, where, in light of all the devastating emotional difficulties due to the election results, he'd have access to puppy therapy, crayons, play-dough and safe spaces with which to snuggle in his many disapprovals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

What do you think of the argument that Comey wrote that letter to Congress because he had just found out about the 650,000 emails himself and had told Congress that he would inform it of any new developments. If he had waited till after the election to inform Congress, he could be accused of trying to influence the election with his silence. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I know you have said several times that those 650,000 emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Well, I don't understand why no one in the leadership of the Democratic Party knew what you know. No Democrat that I know of (and I certainly could have missed it) pointed out that those emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Were even the Democrats in cahoots with Comey, or is this knowledge of getting through 650,000 emails in a day or so exclusive to you?

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

iff,

What do you think of the argument that Comey wrote that letter to Congress because he had just found out about the 650,000 emails himself and had told Congress that he would inform it of any new developments. If he had waited till after the election to inform Congress, he could be accused of trying to influence the election with his silence. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I know you have said several times that those 650,000 emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Well, I don't understand why no one in the leadership of the Democratic Party knew what you know. No Democrat that I know of (and I certainly could have missed it) pointed out that those emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Were even the Democrats in cahoots with Comey, or is this knowledge of getting through 650,000 emails in a day or so exclusive to you?

 

you've pointed something out that has gone largely unmentioned, Ron.

I've read way too many times in this most ridiculous thread the liberally applied "Comey announced" and "Comey loudly announced." The fact is that Comey announced nothing 11 days before the election.

Comey sent a letter to Congress (because he said that he would do so). That's it. And he in fact refused to answer any further requests and demands from BOTH sides

To suspect that James Comey is in league to thwart Hillary Clinton is to suspect that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton discussed grandkids and golf for 38 minutes on that tarmac.

I think Cliff really does possess some exclusive knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But this was almost 30 years later.  Also, that election was a wave election because the nausea about George W Bush had reached skyscraper heights.  People wanted real change and that is what Obama sold, recall Hope and Change.

 

 

Jim:  I don't get the above ......I have reached out to a professional Pol that I know about this Bradley Effect stuff so let's see what he says....but any event let's move on. 

One thing that is currently peaking my interest in reading the post-mortems about the election, is the previously unacknowledged ubiquity of "Fake News" sites on social media and how they could have influenced the election......which may do more to explain the election results than anything else......the Wiener/ HRC's email/Comey Episode is starting to look a lot like a page right out of a DAP/CIA  disinformation playbook...........with Huma Adbedin as HRC's Trojan Horse just like, to get back on topic,  LBJ (or ?) may have been JFK's Trojan Horse.

analysis of the role of fake news/disinformation in this election: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html

Edited by Dan Doyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

Florida first.

Florida.jpg

Little help, Chris? what am I supposed to get from this graphic (I'm a Republican and sometimes need people to point things out to me...)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Again, you cannot directly quote anything I write.

Again, you continue to pretend that 11 straight days of 24/7 negative coverage didn't have an impact on late-breaking voters.

Again, you pretend voter suppression doesn't exist.

So?

Are you ever going to post a fact-based argument?

"Again, you cannot directly quote anything I write." Falsely based on the assumption that he - or anyone - goes around memorising your writing enough to quote it.

"Again, you continue to pretend that 11 straight days of 24/7 negative coverage didn't have an impact on late-breaking voters." As opposed to 18 straight months of anti-Sanders/anti-Trump vitriol by every major media outlet on the planet but one.

"Again, you pretend voter suppression doesn't exist." Of course it exists. Ask Bernie Sanders.

"...post a fact-based argument?" Fact based? Emails, my good man. plenty of them. this stuff is documented and very public. If you haven't seen it, then this explains your obvious reticence toward backing up your own arguments aside from the generic, predictable (your "research" is not nearly as unique as you think it is), pop liberal talking points.

We've heard them for years. They're rarely worth responding to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Wow, Cliff, you sure do like to say many other people lie.  If I were around you, I think I'd even be afraid to tell you that the sky was blue for fear you'd call me a xxxx too :)

 

If you tell me on a rainy day that the sky is blue I'd say you're mistaken.

Hillary haters who swoon for their vapors any time someone is called the L-word go on "ignore."

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Cliff,

What do you think of the argument that Comey wrote that letter to Congress because he had just found out about the 650,000 emails himself and had told Congress that he would inform it of any new developments.

But he could have checked those e-mails out in short order.

But he could have checked those e-mails in short order.

They were duplicates, a fact that could have been verified in the time it took him to write his letter to Congress.

Quote

If he had waited till after the election to inform Congress, he could be accused of trying to influence the election with his silence. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

So it's okay for  civil servant to have a determinative impact on a Presidential election because he might take heat after if he didn't?

So instead of calling him a criminal and traitor-- he was just the biggest coward in American history?

11 days before an election the FBI director announces a renewed investigation into a Presidential candidate, 9 days later says there's nothing to it -- unacceptable under any circumstances no matter who the candidate is!

Quote

I know you have said several times that those 650,000 emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Well, I don't understand why no one in the leadership of the Democratic Party knew what you know.

They did know.

What were they going to do about it?

Raise hell about it over the next 11 days and make it even more of a story?

Quote

No Democrat that I know of (and I certainly could have missed it) pointed out that those emails could have been gone through in a day or so. Were even the Democrats in cahoots with Comey, or is this knowledge of getting through 650,000 emails in a day or so exclusive to you?

Edward Snowden Shows Just How Fast The FBI Could Read Hillary Clinton’s Emails

“Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-emails_us_581fe27de4b0aac62485334d

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But he could have checked those e-mails in short order.

They were duplicates, a fact that could have been verified in the time it took him to write his letter to Congress.

So it's okay for  civil servant to have a determinative impact on a Presidential election because he might take heat after if he didn't?

So instead of calling him a criminal and traitor-- he was just the biggest coward in American history?

11 days before an election the FBI director announces a renewed investigation into a Presidential candidate, 9 days later says there's nothing to it it-- unacceptable under any circumstances no matter who the candidate is!

They did know.

What were they going to do about it?

Raise hell about it over the next 11 days and make it even more of a story?

Edward Snowden Shows Just How Fast The FBI Could Read Hillary Clinton’s Emails

“Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-emails_us_581fe27de4b0aac62485334d

They were not duplicates, Cliff. Damn, man. Where do you get your news from?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...