(04-02-2018 09:11 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 08:53 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 12:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 12:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  I'd also like to know how often the final findings are written a month or two in advance of the principle target of an investigation being interviewed.

These things puzzle a layman.

You mean like your thread title?

Those big words were copied and pasted. Sorry. I'll try to use little words from now on.

Exactly, you cut and paste but don’t see the contradiction you pasted. A sheep.

Okay, I'll play. What's contradictory about first investigate, then dismantle?

You said hownthey could conclude something in advance. I am asking why investigate if you have already concluded it should be dismantled?

(04-01-2018 01:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 06:39 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Neither of us know what was really said in either of those meetings. That's the problem. The events in question are completely open to interpretation.

I haven't claimed I know what was said in either of those meetings. I've repeated what I've read by otherwise reputable jounalists like Byron York, who I don't believe would put their asses on the line making up wild shyte as they go. One thing I do know is that I've been a lot more interested in what the FBI was doing than you, and the more I learn, the more concerned I am about their actions and motives.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Investigators are given a great deal of leeway in terms of being deceptive and using subterfuge in dealing with people they believe may not otherwise be forthcoming.

Now you've morphed from, the FBI would inform any target of his miranda rights, to this? The interviewed him about his conversations with a Ruski. Though the FBI agents themselves told the boss they didn't feel he was being evasive with his answers, the FBI decided to lean on him anyway.

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I have absolutely no idea what was said in those 2 meetings, Flynn himself could have said they were questioning him about security clearances as cover for himself so the Donald didn't know he was a target and likely to spill the beans on Trump. Who knows? maybe someday it'll all come out.'

You appear to approach this entire subject as many do, "the FBI was in charge and I trust the FBI". That's fine, that's your right. I don't trust them. And again, the more I dig and read about what all transpired, the more the entire thing stinks.

Have you read about the Bleach Bit guy OD? Claimed to FBI investigators he didn't erase anything on Clinton's servers. We later learn he did so AFTER congress supoened all those records. Once given immunity, yeah, that's right, immunity, he suddenly remembers erasing thousands of files but can't recall if anyone told him to do so. LOL You think that asshat was charged with a crime?

(03-31-2018 06:18 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I do believe this as a certainty. If Flynn was a target, he was told his rights. No way in hell the FBI doesn't cover their ass in such a fundamental procedure.
If they read him his rights the first day, you are free to come to whatever conclusion you want about why Flynn did not tell his boss.

Here, I believe you are just wrong. I have read no where that Flynn was ever advised that he was the target of an investigation or read his miranda rights when the FBI interviewed him about his conversations with the Russian diplomat. From what I understand, they found discrepencies in his testimony, and though minor, used that to charge him lying to the FBI.

In the end, if it looks like a witch hunt, walks like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, I'm inclined to believe it's a witch hunt. McCabe will be front and center in the IG's report. McCabe had a long-running hard-on for Flynn. I believe the truth will eventually come out......much of it already has in drips and drabs. Partisans just refuse to accept it.

Do you honestly believe his lawyer would miss this? That he would not consider the correctness of the FBI's conduct?
When did his attorney raise this as an issue? I don't recall ever hearing his lawyer screaming bloody murder.
Again, neither you or I know the real facts, and probably most investigative reporters don't either.
In my opinion, the FBI used an inquiry into security clearances as pretext to get Flynn alone without Trumps team coaching him. Flynn knew after the first meeting he was toast and had to cooperate with the FBI, thus explaining his not telling Trump about the second meeting.

So was he mirandized or not?

You don’t see the crux of the problem here?

Was it an interrogation? Criminal investigation? Or an “interview”?

Dude is now, for the time being, a convicted felon. Guess he got his witch...

(04-03-2018 12:36 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 09:11 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 08:53 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 12:31 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You mean like your thread title?

Those big words were copied and pasted. Sorry. I'll try to use little words from now on.

Exactly, you cut and paste but don’t see the contradiction you pasted. A sheep.

Okay, I'll play. What's contradictory about first investigate, then dismantle?

You said hownthey could conclude something in advance. I am asking why investigate if you have already concluded it should be dismantled?

Okay, I think I'm seeing the problem here. You're having trouble with those big words and taking this to a logical conclusion. Lemme help. And while what I'm saying represents my own opinion, I suspect I'm not far off from the author's opinion as well.

The first assumption that is made is that something is broken, or wrong at the FBI. That's called a conclusion. Here's the definition of the word:

Quote:the end or finish of an event or process. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning

Based on events over the last year, using reasoning, many people have concluded that the FBI has become politicized. Many also believe that a politicized FBI, like a politicized IRS, or politicized DOJ, is not good for America, not good for any American, ever. Those are powerful institutions, and when they become politicized, they are even more powerful weapons against one's political enemies.......banana republic type stuff.

So, a problem has been identified and the first step to solving a problem is typically to identiify the nature of the problem. That typically involves an investigation. Here's a formal definition of the word in case you're still struggling with the concept:

Quote:carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth. carry out research or study into (a subject, typically one in a scientific or academic field) so as to discover facts or information. make inquiries as to the character, activities, or background of (someone)

Okay, that part's behind us, try to stay with me here.

Once the investigation is completed, and the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization. Here's the definition of dismantle:

Quote:take (a machine or structure) to pieces

Now, no one is suggesting that the FBI be dismantled (see definition above) only to be left in pieces, in a non-functioning state. Quite the contrary, and this is where we've been going with this difficult concept all along. Everyone, in the end, I believe wants to see the FBI functioning even better.

So, once the investigation is completed, the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization and rebuild or restructure it in such a way that no president, not even His Orangeness, can use the institution to torment his political enemies, ever again.

I'm sorry for using so many big words to make my case, but it was unaviodable. If you need any further help, I, or any number of other adults will be more than happy to walk you through these confusing concepts. We're here to help. We want to do it.......for the children.

(04-03-2018 08:44 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 12:36 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 09:11 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 08:53 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 12:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Those big words were copied and pasted. Sorry. I'll try to use little words from now on.

Exactly, you cut and paste but don’t see the contradiction you pasted. A sheep.

Okay, I'll play. What's contradictory about first investigate, then dismantle?

You said hownthey could conclude something in advance. I am asking why investigate if you have already concluded it should be dismantled?

Okay, I think I'm seeing the problem here. You're having trouble with those big words and taking this to a logical conclusion. Lemme help. And while what I'm saying represents my own opinion, I suspect I'm not far off from the author's opinion as well.

The first assumption that is made is that something is broken, or wrong at the FBI. That's called a conclusion. Here's the definition of the word:

Quote:the end or finish of an event or process. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning

Based on events over the last year, using reasoning, many people have concluded that the FBI has become politicized. Many also believe that a politicized FBI, like a politicized IRS, or politicized DOJ, is not good for America, not good for any American, ever. Those are powerful institutions, and when they become politicized, they are even more powerful weapons against one's political enemies.......banana republic type stuff.

So, a problem has been identified and the first step to solving a problem is typically to identiify the nature of the problem. That typically involves an investigation. Here's a formal definition of the word in case you're still struggling with the concept:

Quote:carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth. carry out research or study into (a subject, typically one in a scientific or academic field) so as to discover facts or information. make inquiries as to the character, activities, or background of (someone)

Okay, that part's behind us, try to stay with me here.

Once the investigation is completed, and the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization. Here's the definition of dismantle:

Quote:take (a machine or structure) to pieces

Now, no one is suggesting that the FBI be dismantled (see definition above) only to be left in pieces, in a non-functioning state. Quite the contrary, and this is where we've been going with this difficult concept all along. Everyone, in the end, I believe wants to see the FBI functioning even better.

So, once the investigation is completed, the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization and rebuild or restructure it in such a way that no president, not even His Orangeness, can use the institution to torment his political enemies, ever again.

I'm sorry for using so many big words to make my case, but it was unaviodable. If you need any further help, I, or any number of other adults will be more than happy to walk you through these confusing concepts. We're here to help. We want to do it.......for the children.

Who are this people? What are their qualifications and what are their political backgrounds. So forgive me if I feel your argument is crap. You and these “many people have already come to a conclusion prior to any investigation. Let Huber do his job.

(04-03-2018 11:04 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 08:44 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-03-2018 12:36 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 09:11 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 08:53 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Exactly, you cut and paste but don’t see the contradiction you pasted. A sheep.

Okay, I'll play. What's contradictory about first investigate, then dismantle?

You said hownthey could conclude something in advance. I am asking why investigate if you have already concluded it should be dismantled?

Okay, I think I'm seeing the problem here. You're having trouble with those big words and taking this to a logical conclusion. Lemme help. And while what I'm saying represents my own opinion, I suspect I'm not far off from the author's opinion as well.

The first assumption that is made is that something is broken, or wrong at the FBI. That's called a conclusion. Here's the definition of the word:

Quote:the end or finish of an event or process. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning

Based on events over the last year, using reasoning, many people have concluded that the FBI has become politicized. Many also believe that a politicized FBI, like a politicized IRS, or politicized DOJ, is not good for America, not good for any American, ever. Those are powerful institutions, and when they become politicized, they are even more powerful weapons against one's political enemies.......banana republic type stuff.

So, a problem has been identified and the first step to solving a problem is typically to identiify the nature of the problem. That typically involves an investigation. Here's a formal definition of the word in case you're still struggling with the concept:

Quote:carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth. carry out research or study into (a subject, typically one in a scientific or academic field) so as to discover facts or information. make inquiries as to the character, activities, or background of (someone)

Okay, that part's behind us, try to stay with me here.

Once the investigation is completed, and the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization. Here's the definition of dismantle:

Quote:take (a machine or structure) to pieces

Now, no one is suggesting that the FBI be dismantled (see definition above) only to be left in pieces, in a non-functioning state. Quite the contrary, and this is where we've been going with this difficult concept all along. Everyone, in the end, I believe wants to see the FBI functioning even better.

So, once the investigation is completed, the problem or problems identified, dismantle the organization and rebuild or restructure it in such a way that no president, not even His Orangeness, can use the institution to torment his political enemies, ever again.

I'm sorry for using so many big words to make my case, but it was unaviodable. If you need any further help, I, or any number of other adults will be more than happy to walk you through these confusing concepts. We're here to help. We want to do it.......for the children.

Who are this people? What are their qualifications and what are their political backgrounds. So forgive me if I feel your argument is crap. You and these “many people have already come to a conclusion prior to any investigation. Let Huber do his job.

We're not prosecutors or investigators, so we're allowed to reach a conclusion long before all the facts are in. We're working with a body of evidence that so far has become public knowledge.......call it the court of public opinion.

Now if we were prosecutors or investigators, we couldn't be writing the guilty verdicts of those involved before all the evidence is in, until all the interviews are done, right?

That's the sort of thing only guys like Comey are allowed to do......writing an exoneration memo of Cankles months before she and 16 others were even interviewed.