Inspector General Not Too Happy With James Comey's Handling Of The Clinton Email Investigation
from the FBI-still-sucks-but-in-exciting-new-ways! dept
The damning report the President has been waiting for has arrived. The Inspector General's report covering everything from James Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation (terribly with bonus insubordination) to a couple of FBI agents forming a two-person #Resistance (stupid and made the FBI look bad, but not illegal) runs almost 600 pages and won't make anyone looking to pin blame solely on one side of the partisan divide very happy.
It's been claimed the report would finally show the FBI to be an agency filled with partisan hacks, further solidifying "Deep State" conspiracy theories that the government Trump runs is out to destroy Trump. It was somehow going to accomplish this despite many people feeling the FBI's late October dive back into the Clinton email investigation handed the election to Trump.
Whatever the case -- and whatever side of the political divide you cheer for -- the only entity that comes out of this looking terrible is the FBI. That the FBI would engage in questionable behavior shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but the anti-Trump "resistance" has taken Trump's attacks on the FBI as a reason to convert Comey, the FBI, and the DOJ into folk heroes of democracy.
The summary of the report [PDF] runs 15 pages by itself and hands out enough damning bullet points to keep readers occupied for hours. Then there's the rest of the report, which provides the details and may take several days to fully parse.
Here are some of the low lights from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, possibly the only person who should be touting "Deep State" theories since he's spent his IG career being dicked around by the DEA, DOJ, FBI, and DEA.
The report says everything about the Clinton email investigation was unusual. Termed the "Midyear Exam" by the FBI, the investigation was mostly a voluntary affair. Most of the evidence and testimony obtained was obtained from consenting witnesses and participants. The FBI rarely felt the need to compel testimony or evidence with subpoenas. It also did not access the contents of multiple devices used by Clinton's senior aides, devices that may have contained classified info that had been circulated through a private email server. As the report notes, this is at odds with Comey's sudden interest in Anthony Weiner's laptop, where his estranged wife (and former Clinton personal assistant) Huma Abedin apparently had stored copies of Clinton emails.
The IG says the tactics used were unusual but does not pass official judgment on them. However, the actions of five FBI employees involved in the investigation did further damage to the FBI and its reputation by taking an investigation already viewed as politically-questionable and aggravating the perception.
In undertaking our analysis, our task was made significantly more difficult because of text and instant messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by five FBI employees involved in the Midyear investigation. These messages reflected political opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and against her then political opponent, Donald Trump. Some of these text messages and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the Midyear investigation, and raised concerns that political bias may have impacted investigative decisions.
However, the IG did not uncover evidence suggesting any of these FBI employees had the power to steer the investigation. Some of those engaged in anti-Trump texts actually pushed for additional subpoenas and search warrants in an investigation that seemingly had little use for any testimony not obtained voluntarily. But that doesn't mean these actions were harmless.
Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.
From there, it moves on to James Comey's surprising decision to go public with the email investigation's conclusions in July of 2016. This followed the softening of language in the FBI's investigative report. Clinton's handling of classified info went from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." The possibility of hostile actors accessing Clinton's email server went from "reasonably likely" to "possible." Then Comey decided to go public, cutting plenty of people out of the loop so they wouldn't prevent him from doing so.
Comey acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership about his plans to make a separate statement because he was concerned that they would instruct him not to do it. He also acknowledged that he made this decision when he first conceived of the idea to do the statement, even as he continued to engage the Department in discussions about the “endgame” for the investigation.
Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.
[...]
We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.
The late October letter to Congress about the reopening of the investigation isn't viewed as any better by the OIG. Comey claimed he needed to do this because withholding the discovery of emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop might have been viewed as swinging the election in Clinton's favor. The IG disagrees.
Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice. We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation as to why transparency was more important than Department policy and practice with regard to the reactivated Midyear investigation while, by contrast, Department policy and practice were more important to follow with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations.
Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment.
Then comes the irony. As Comey became the front-mouth for an investigation he shouldn't have been talking about, he routinely engaged in the same behavior he was currently investigating.
We identified numerous instances in which Comey used a personal email account to conduct unclassified FBI business. We found that, given the absence of exigent circumstances and the frequency with which the use of personal email occurred, Comey’s use of a personal email account for unclassified FBI business to be inconsistent with Department policy.
In addition to being a violation of FBI policy, James Comey -- currently idolized by some as a speaker of truth to power for being fired by the president -- also violated FOIA law by using a private email account for government communications. Comey wasn't the only one -- other agents involved in the investigation routinely used private email accounts -- but he was the FBI's personification of the Clinton email investigation. On top of this, he told other FBI agents the use of personal email accounts would subject them to harsh punishment.
In an October 2016 speech at an FBI conference in San Diego, Comey said, "I have gotten emails from some employees about this, who said if I did what Hillary Clinton did I'd be in huge trouble. My response is you bet your ass you'd be in huge trouble. If you used a personal email, Gmail or if you [had] the capabilities to set up your own email domain, if you used an unclassified personal email system to do our business... you would be in huge trouble in the FBI."
Some may quibble about the lack of classified info being circulated by these agents and their Gmail accounts, but the fact remains the use of private email accounts increases the risk of circulation exponentially. Sticking to government accounts reduces this possibility to zero.
There's much more in the report, including some discussion about the propriety of the Russian influence investigation that Trump claims is a witch hunt. Nothing in the report suggests the investigation isn't valid, even if the actions of agents (the anti-Trump texting) and Andrew McCabe's non-recusal (his wife took money from a Clinton-connected PAC) managed to cover everything with a slimy gloss of impropriety.
The upshot of the report is this: James Comey deserved to be fired, although probably not for the reasons Trump had in mind when he did it. The people employed by the FBI are not always able to set aside their personal biases when engaged in investigations. But the FBI is no one party's political tool. It's a blend of both sides, which makes it unlikely anything was done intentionally to harm Trump or Clinton's political prospects. For all the complaining done by Trump, he's the one in office. If the election was "thrown" by Comey's fourth quarter audible in the email investigation, Trump was the beneficiary of the FBI's actions. This makes complaints about a Russian investigation "witch hunt" incoherent, as it tries to retcon the FBI's actions to portray them as being #NeverTrump even when they were (not officially) helping him. The simultaneous investigations of Clinton and Trump make it difficult to craft a coherent conspiracy theory, but it certainly isn't stopping anyone from trying. The FBI is untrustworthy, but it's not a kingmaker.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, donald trump, email, fbi, hillary clinton, inspector general, james comey, michael horowitz, private email, procedures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hers was inconsistent with the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Comey's emails have not been released so we do not know how many contained classified information.
To this day Trump still uses an unsecure phone. https://gizmodo.com/report-trump-using-personal-cell-phone-a-lot-more-jus-1825488093
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Every time I hear a D or an R piss and moan about someone on the other side I think of how they never put their own law breakers in check.
Clean up your own house before you go to theirs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The DOJ IG found none.
Again, any classified material found was classified AFTER they were received. That includes news stories from the NYT. notes of meetings from John Kerry (tabled publicly in Senate records), comments pointing to other public knowledge, etc.
State Department protocol requires that all classified material be sent by secure cable. Clinton had every right to assume that any email material was not classified. Spinning it that her server was compromised or knowingly had classified material is such a frail claim that no prosecutor would take it before a judge. Prosecutors know this would be tossed out on summary judgment.
The Russian fed trolls have been pushing your BS for two years. How many times does it need to be refuted before you give up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you stop worshiping at the altar maybe you can find a clue.
"How many times does it need to be refuted before you give up?"
I think the better question is... how dirty does your house have to get before you clean it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So tell us, enlightened one, what knowledge will we gain when we stop worshiping at the altar of whatever the fuck you're talking about?
Tell me, what "clue" do you have that we're all missing? Did you get it as a bonus when you ordered your super-duty conservative taint cream from Alex Jones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what is your point?
I asked a question.
You have no facts so you resort to ad hominems.
As opposed to this useless shitpost? Irony - you should google it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the personal-server law this kool-aid chugger claims Clinton supposedly violated wasn't even written until after the event took place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whitewashing
Don't you think there might be a reason why the more important an investigation, the less time investigators are generally allotted to find the truth ? And when investigators nonetheless discover the truth despite extreme time constraints, then they are simply ordered by their bosses to reverse their conclusion ? How about the USS Liberty Report -- verdict reversed by secret presidential order.
President Johnson ordered Admiral Isaac Kidd to reverse the verdict in the US Navy Court of Inquiry report of the USS Liberty attack -- which was given an arbitrary deadline of one week.
That's according to Ward Boston, the senior legal counsel who helped prepare that report that 30 years later he swears was secretly overruled from the top down.
http://ifamericaknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whitewashing
Not really comparable to whitewashing the investigation of a private citizen, who happened to be running for president, while showing bias against her competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whitewashing
Though maybe he feared he'd end up like Kennedy -- not an irrational fear when your adversary is a country with a fearsome record of successful political assassinations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whitewashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whitewashing
Comey is a narcissistic, grandstanding jackass that should never have been hired, and should have been fired long before the election even happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is Comey not in prison?
Why are we tolerating his actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
Perhaps because, while this action logically should have helped Clinton, it didn't do enough to actually influence the election for anyone to care. She still lost despite this aid, and I don't recall any claims that the foreknowledge of the questions improved her performance much, if at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
All criminal charges may only be filed by a prosecutor. At the Federal level that is the DOJ. Contrary to what many believe, even the FBI can not press charges.
Some Federal agencies do file charges, such as the SEC or EEC. These though are in front of Administrative Judges and do not involve jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Comey not in prison?
Because he hasn't committed any crimes. His behavior was, at best, ill-advised, and, at worst, extremely unethical. But that doesn't make it criminal.
The correct punishment for unethical behavior isn't prison. It's firing.
Which, as you may have heard, has already happened. Indeed, Comey's interference was Rosenstein's express stated reason for firing Comey, and I believe he was sincere in that justification (though Trump soon gave away the game and revealed that he asked Rosenstein to look for a reason to fire Comey, when the real reason he wanted him gone was the Russia investigation).
Uh, there was. It's the thing we're talking about. Right now.
We aren't.
He was fired.
His actions were investigated by the Office of the Inspector General.
The IG just released a report that was highly critical of those actions.
Again, that is the subject we are currently discussing.
What part of this aren't you getting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bipartisan self-protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bipartisan self-protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bipartisan self-protection
It has been reported that Trump still uses an unsecured Android phone. https://gizmodo.com/report-trump-using-personal-cell-phone-a-lot-more-jus-1825488093
Until February, 2013, (after Clinton left the Secretary's job) the Obama Administration made it policy that banned private email accounts and all government employees had to use a government account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
When does she got arrested and charged? Why has this not been done?
Because Trump is a useless impotent lying bag of shit.
You bought that "lock her up" bullshit lock, stock, and barrel, sucker. I guess you'll have to keep waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
The GOP has been accusing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing for twenty-five years now, from Vince Foster and Whitewater to Benghazi and Pizzagate. None of these investigations has ever resulted in an indictment.
So, there are two possibilities here.
Either Hillary Clinton is guilty and she's an all-powerful master manipulator who's managed to outfox investigators over and over again for a quarter-century, yet somehow her enormous influence was insufficient to win an election against Donald Trump...
or...
The reason Republicans haven't found anything to charge Hillary Clinton with in 25 years of investigations is that she hasn't done anything that warrants criminal charges, the ones who keep telling you that she'll be indicted any day now are lying to get your money, your vote, or both, and Donald Trump never had any intention of locking her up, he just said he did because the crowd at his rallies would cheer when he said it.
I get that you prefer the option that makes you not seem like a gullible dupe who's been sold a bill of goods. But consider these two possibilities for a moment and ask yourself which one sounds more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy theories
While it's fair to say that there was no evidence of a unified coherent conspiracy against any particular candidate, I don't think it follows to say that "makes it unlikely anything was done intentionally to harm Trump or Clinton's political prospects." Rather, I would say that some employees engaged in conduct that may have been intended to harm Trump; other employees engaged in conduct that may have been intended to harm Clinton. Maybe some employees even tried to harm both. We don't have a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (or Vast Left Wing Conspiracy) here, but we certainly have unethical conduct and the suggestion of multiple competing / conflicting little conspiracies.
A few employees have demonstrated clear anti-Trump personal bias (whether that affected their job performance is an important and much harder question). Yet others, such as Comey, have demonstrated a clear commitment to objectives that ultimately helped Trump. In Comey's case, it's hard to see how he could have expected the October reveal to be pro-Clinton. It's a complicated question whether he did that reveal as a pro-Trump move, an anti-management move, or as some sort of self-serving decision with profound public consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Still cannot find PeterStrzocs emails....
http://m.newser.com/story/254411/new-texts-out-from-fbi-agent-kicked-off-of-muellers-team. html
..
..the FBI said its system for retaining texts failed to preserve communications between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 17, 2017; May 17 was the date Mueller was appointed special counsel. One message references a change in language to former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out Clinton's email case. While a draft said Clinton and President Obama had an email exchange while Clinton was "on the territory" of a hostile adversary, the reference to Obama was changed to "senior government official" and then omitted. In another, the two gripe about then-AG Loretta Lynch's decision to defer to the FBI on the Clinton probe—days after she and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting. Strzok said the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." Page mockingly refers to Lynch's decision as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought."
Oh! Wait! We found them again(grimacing now that they are forced to turn the tools they use on hapless civilians.on themselves)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-says-he-has-reco vered-fbi-officials-missing-texts-during-key-period-leading-up-to-muellers-appointment/2018/01/25/52 ab8344-01f9-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.291998c162e5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/heres-how-the-irs-lost-emails-from- key-witness-lois-lerner/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Rove-v-22 million emails.....
....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Manila envelopes, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Also putting your name on your post may have people reaching for the flag button to click before they even read your post, if you're judged to be "one of them" and not "one of us". Just a guess as to why certain prolific contrarian commenters have switched to commenting anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause and effect
Also putting your name on your post may have people reaching for the flag button to click before they even read your post, if you're judged to be "one of them" and not "one of us".
It has nothing to do with 'One of them/us', and everything to do with reputations and responses to them. If someone gets a toxic reputation via, say, a history of insults and offtopic ranting, then it's entirely understandbale that people would respond by assuming any future comments are simply more of the same and flag by default.
It's not what you say so much as how you say it. Be polite and show an interest in an honest conversation and you can be as contrarian as you please. Demonstrate that you're just interested in strawmaning, insults and lies however and out comes the flagging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cause and effect
I've got an Ignore list.
If you post under a nym, there's a chance that I may put you on it.
But if you're posting anonymously, then you're already on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cause and effect
I can somewhat understand why you'd go that far, but it strikes me as overkill and tossing the good out with the bad. Yes some AC's can be trollish and toxic, but you can also get AC's that are interested in a good discussion and/or have good points, so tossing all of that in the bin seems a bit extreme.
Still, up to you if you're willing to pay that 'cost' I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cause and effect
Or that people who put themselves in God-mode online are EXACTLY how fascism crept in everywhere?
Oh, never mind. You do that INTENTIONALLY.From Joe Arpaios state nonetheless.
Hope you find the magic book that can shut down the rest of the constitution now.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cause and effect: moms not hom~leave basement~popcorn
~It has nothing to do with 'One of them/us', and everything to do with reputations and responses to them.
Speech police of any period .of history fit specific profiles.
Guess which one you are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Only a NAZI would treat people according to how they act!'
Thanks for the laugh, because clearly 'actions and reputations have consequences' is the sort of thing that could only come from a nazi.
If you don't want your comments constantly sent to time-out, stop acting like a child. Until then have fun unwittingly providing entertainment for those around you as your comments are repeatedly flagged for reasons everyone but you will understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only an (SJW/jerk)would treat people according jerky knees'
Slinging shit, then flagging~and using auto flagg scripts besides.
No, I think I have .been very clear~Nazis are so .passe next to this new/old thing.
It is amazing how irrational the once rational left has become, due to ADLification, and the Israelification of the police.
You have the surveillance state you deserve.
Likely because you were raised in the speech policing era, whereas some of us still remember the .little, important things, like non-binary choices, and cibvil rights and due process.
Fascists dont need those things, cuz they all work off a script.
Here, you can have this one from Thadeus Boyd, pearl clutching speechphobic individual:
With that realization, I whipped up a quick Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey script to block all posts from specified usernames.
// ==UserScript==
// @name Hide Techdirt Comments
// @namespace http://corporate-sellout.com
// @description Hide comments on Techdirt, based on user and comment length.
// @include https://www.techdirt.com/articles/*
// @include https://www.techdirt.com/blog/*
// @require https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.3.1.min.js
// ==/UserScript==
// Maximum length of Subject line before hiding contents
var maxSubjectLength = 50;
// List of users whose comments you want to hide -- collect 'em all!
var ignoreMe = [
'Anonymous Coward',
'MyNameHere'
];
// Set "Subject:" line in reply to "Re: tl;dr"
var clearInput = function() {
$('#replysubject').val('Re: tl;dr');
};
// Check comment to see if poster matches anyone in ignoreMe.
// If yes, remove the comment and return true.
// If no, return false.
function checkComment(cmt) {
var name = $('.commentname > div > :first-child', cmt).text().trim();
for(var i=0; i<ignoreMe.length; i++) {
if(ignoreMe[i] == name) {
cmt.text('removed');
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
// If subject exceeds maxSubjectLength, remove it.
function trimSubject(cmt) {
var subject = $('.commentsubject', cmt),
len = subject.text().length;
if(len > maxSubjectLength) {
subject.empty();
// Find "Reply" button for this comment
// and bind clearInput() to its click() event.
var cmtId = cmt.attr('id').substr(1),
replyLink = $('#cmmt_link_' + cmtId);
replyLink.click(clearInput);
}
}
$('.cmt').each(function() {
var cmt = $(this),
removed = checkComment(cmt);
if(!removed) {
trimSubject(cmt);
}
});
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Most pedophiles hate pure speech, and narcissists cannot tolerate criticism.
I will write about this later, because they are making my point for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Rove-v-22 million! emails.....
....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Manila envelopes, lol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Re: Re: Profiles in Political Polcing, aka,totalitarian obstructionism
Or was it Rove?
Rove-v-22 million emails.....
....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Manila envelopes, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obstructionism
~There!
Fixed it for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craigslist flaggers have migrated to TD forum
Lashon hara!
It looks like the speech police from the police state, Fusion Center, DHS/FBI and military trolls have migrated here to TD.
This is enabled because of the climate change as America shifts from Welfare State to full blown Police State.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+welfare+state+to+police+state.-a0172775627
I would love to see more articles about how the Pentagon, Israeli Squad 3200,JTRIG, etc runs troll farms targeting Americans and pure speech, and the web scrubbing that takes place in forums like this.
And, I would love to see TDs server logs too, and prove that what I say up there is true.
Another WIN for the terrorists! Whoever "they"are, lol....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel like Lenny Bruce, with trenchcoat wearing perverts following me to every forum here.
Lashon hara!
It looks like the speech police from the police state, Fusion Center, DHS/FBI and military trolls have migrated here to TD.
This is enabled because of the climate change as America shifts from Welfare State to full blown Police State.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+welfare+state+to+police+state.-a0172775627
I would love to see more articles about how the Pentagon, Israeli Squad 3200,JTRIG, etc runs troll farms targeting Americans and pure speech, and the web scrubbing that takes place in forums like this.
And, I would love to see TDs server logs too, and prove that what I say up there is true.
Another WIN for the terrorists! Whoever "they"are, lol...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Lenny Bruce, comedic genius
I feel like Lenny Bruce, with trenchcoat wearing perverts following me to every forum here.
Lashon hara!
It looks like the speech police from the police state, Fusion Center, DHS/FBI and military trolls have migrated here to TD.
This is enabled because of the climate change as America shifts from Welfare State to full blown Police State.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+welfare+state+to+police+state.-a0172775627
I would love to see more articles about how the Pentagon, Israeli Squad 3200,JTRIG, etc runs troll farms targeting Americans and pure speech, and the web scrubbing that takes place in forums like this.
And, I would love to see TDs server logs too, and prove that what I say up there is true.
Another WIN for the terrorists! Whoever "they"are, lol....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]