@georgeob1,
Quote:I'm suggesting there was likely a "united" effort on the part of the Obama Administration to ensure a Clinton victory in the election despite (and partly motivated by) the already detectable deficiencies in the leadership and effectiveness of her campaign.
And you may so suggest. But there's no evidentiary reason for myself or anyone to grant your suggestion reflects reality.
Quote:Starting with Bengasi and the unexpected performance of Sanders in the Democrat primary a series of events made them aware that the confidently expected Clinton win in the election was not at all a sure thing.
More suggesting. But it doesn't make much sense since nobody, including Trump himself (as he has stated) thought he would win. There's no evidence I've seen anywhere to support you notion, george, and plenty to contradict it.
Quote:to both protect her and turn the situation against the unexpected emergence of Trump in the Primary.
Come on, george. Everyone thought the rise of Trump a gift to the Clinton candidacy. Never in our lifetimes has there been such a broad and deep revolt by senior conservatives to try and stop a Trump candidacy.
Quote:The discovery and "investigation" of the illicit use of a private (and unsecured) server to support Clinton's e-mails during her term as Secretary of State, together with the emergence of hacked information from the, poorly secured, DNC e-mail server had already yielded an embarrassing and dangerous situation for candidate Clinton,
This was imprudent but as noted at the time, prior S of Ss had operated the same way. Charges were not laid. You can, as many right wing media audiences do, conclude that Comey was working to forward her prospects but given the decision by Comey to "reopen" the investigation two weeks out makes the claim look silly (and, of course, without evidence).
Quote:Interestingly it was the same coterie of senior FBI officials (Comey, McCabe and Strzok) who led both the "investigation" of the Hillary e-mail crimes and the investigation of supposed Trump campaign collusion.
Not so interesting if you acknowledge that these were the people whose duties included such investigations.
Quote:Subsequently released phone messages between Strzok and Lisa Page contained assertions by both that the White House was closely monitoring the whole process, and an "insurance policy" was needed.
Please support your claim, don't just make it.
Quote:Despite Strzok’s extremely inappropriate texting — it’s wildly improper for someone in his position to express animus or favoritism toward a particular candidate — the inspector general found no evidence that Strzok acted on his text to Page.
“Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the investigative decisions we reviewed,” the IG report states.
<br />
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/14/17465360/peter-strzok-text-inspector-general-stop
Do you imagine that all FBI, intel, justice persons are without personal political preferences. Would you wish to grill all such persons before or after appointments and if some preference is found, reject or end employment? Should this apply to those who support the GOP or Trump?
Sorry george but I'm not going to bother with the rest. Your notions are deeply colored by the media you attend to which, like you, depend on unsubstantiated leaps of surmise that merely support inherent prejudices.