• In FBI Agent’s Account, ‘Insurance Policy’ Text Referred to Russia Probe
    4 replies, posted
[B][U]In FBI Agent’s Account, ‘Insurance Policy’ Text Referred to Russia Probe[/U][/B] [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-fbi-agents-account-insurance-policy-text-referred-to-russia-probe-1513624580?mg=prod/accounts-wsj[/url] [QUOTE]An FBI agent’s reference to “an insurance policy” in a much-debated text message was meant to convey that the bureau needed to aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, according to people familiar with his account. [B]The agent didn’t intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate but rather address a colleague who believed the Federal Bureau of Investigation could take its time because Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, the people said.[/B] The text was one of many that have recently emerged in which FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page disparaged Mr. Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome human,” among other things. Republicans have cited the texts as evidence of bias. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote the Justice Department: “Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion, and appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an ‘insurance policy’ against a Trump presidency.”[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/942843166553763840[/media]
Makes sense. No need to ease up on the investigation just because they thought Clinton would win. Another conservative talking point rendered moot.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;52987695]Makes sense. No need to ease up on the investigation just because they thought Clinton would win. Another conservative talking point rendered moot.[/QUOTE] As if that'll stop them. They pick a specific lie and hammer it into the masses' brains for as long as possible. Birther conspiracy anyone?
Seeing how hard this administration is fighting to delegitimize the investigation is, frankly, the only evidence required in defense of the necessity and importance of Mueller's team being allowed to proceed unimpeded. Thankfully, we already have veritable mountains of more inculpatory evidence for which to justify it in the event that Trump's tribe actually does make a move against the rule of law.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52989321]Seeing how hard this administration is fighting to delegitimize the investigation is, frankly, the only evidence required in defense of the necessity and importance of Mueller's team being allowed to proceed unimpeded. Thankfully, we already have veritable mountains of more inculpatory evidence for which to justify it in the event that Trump's tribe actually does make a move against the rule of law.[/QUOTE] Defence of the necessity is a legal concept, but it's one that is very rarely accepted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.