Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,767
In Reply To
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 131
Subj: Personal insults ahoy...
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 at 09:36:50 am EST (Viewed 45 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Anything can lead to an impeachment...
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 at 11:24:48 pm EST (Viewed 70 times)


veiled as they attempt to be.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Was sort of wondering where you were.



    Quote:
    Only "sort of"? Well, it's nice to be (sort of) missed!



    Quote:

      Quote:
      A constant beat of drums to go after Clinton again and reaffirming the conservative soup du jur of the day in Uranium One. Both of which the DoJ has announced they are reopening a look into those things.



    Quote:
    That's it? That's all you have regarding Trump "turning the FBI into an attack dog that does the president's wishes"? This justifies "scary times" that are "pretty scary" and "should scare everybody"?


This is the trend I notice with you, you like to move the goalpost and mock people, but lets take a look at some things here with regards to Trump and the various departments of justice.

1. Trump fires Comey after asking him for loyalty and because he wants to remove the Russia investigation from the spotlight.

2. Trump again asked the current FBI chief at some point in the last few months something akin to a loyalty pledge.

3. Trump bangs on the drums about Clinton doing various illegal things and that she should go to jail for it. This alone is unusual for a president to do. And his words privately are the same. We know that he was furious at both Sessions and the deputing head for not doing what he wanted. In both pursuing charges against Clinton and other matters.

4. Trump has done various things, working through Congress with Nunes, on trying to discredit an investigation.

5. Trump has begun a smear campaign with the GOP in general to discredit the FBI and replace members with those more loyal to the cause. Members of Congress have even indicated they should remove most of the FBI.

6. The DoJ, caving to Trump's pressure, opened the investigation into emails, Uranium One and the Clinton foundation again. Trump and basically other pressure from conservatives.

7. The above ignores the findings of the Email investigation, that Uranium One was already looked into. The Clinton Foundation thing may well be legit, but if I can play the what about game. Seems like Trump did more shady things with his directly than the Clinton crew has done. At least that I am aware of at the moment.

8. Trump is the president and puts quite a bit of pressure on the FBI and DoJ to do what he wants them to do. This is unusual in intensity. The president having a very vocal war attacking the credibility of current leadership in both areas. And for partisan reasons.

9. Trump accused, with no evidence, that Obama wire tapped him. The DoJ refuted him, he did not believe him.

10. Trump believes Putin over the FBI, CIA and NSA about Russia not being a good guy in terms of hacking things.

11. Supporting Nunes cherry picked memo to help exonerate him. And to help push the drum beat of replacing career folks with more loyal guys. AS these people have anti-Trump bias apparently.


Trump has had a concerted effort to push the FBI and DoJ to do what he wants. He has even supported a special council to look into the special council or into various other Democratic targets.

And is happily willing to ignore all results that do not seem to go the administrations way. I know you pretend that this happens with each administration but that is just not so.

You may be cool with this, but perhaps I just support a somewhat independent law enforcement more than you do.


    Quote:
    We have one politician accusing another politician of doing something illegal, and asking for an investigation. This isn't new, and shouldn't scare you personally. It's been happening since the very first U.S. administration formed under Washington. It's been happening in other governments long, long before then. Human nature is that, once political factions are formed, to trust those within one's own faction, while distrusting those in a rival faction.


This is clever, but does not address my point. Accusing somebody of something is sort of traditional, but you act like the president doing it and putting loads of pressure on law enforcement to go after them is not something usually done. It is a public sphere thing and never to this degree. Usually, it is the opposition party doing it.

I mean where you cool with the IRS targeting political groups? The general story in circles was that they were attacking conservatives. I guess that was cool. It was not true but that was the narrative at the time.

And why does Trump care about Clinton in the first place? He cannot get out of campaign mode and still has consistently attacked her for little to no reason. The guy needs an enemy for his anger at all times.

And it is very unusual for the president to be actively at war and his political allies to be at war and demand folks step down at the FBI and other places. Or for that matter that they should specifically target things that have already been looked into.


    Quote:
    I would be much more willing to understand your being scared by scary times that are pretty scary which should scare everybody if we see punishments unfairly administered after seriously questionable trials. But we've seen no indication of that in this case.


I am not sure you would be concerned to be honest. Pretty sure you would refer to some random event about something being the same or worse and move on and this is all normal.

I imagine if Obama actively declared war on the FBI and was having them go after Mitt Romney for various things you would feel very differently. Or if he was putting pressure on them to investigate political enemies in a public way.

Seemed to me that he went into office with that possibility, at least forcings from the left, against Bush. But he did not do it. Trump alone has continued political attacks against all political and private enemies and appears to be working to have law enforcement help him out to whatever degree possible.


    Quote:
    Besides...I thought Russia was America's double serious #1 enemy at the moment. I thought investigating Russian influence in our governmental process is the most pressing issue of our times. Is it 100% unwarranted to have questions when Russians give massive sums of money to the fund controlled by the Secretary of State at the same time uranium deals are being made?


You know above when you were ranting to zvelf about only believing political sources. Just reminding you. You are already pretty well brain washed. As it is pretty clear you are taking these from partisan sources with minimum understanding of events.

Russia is a major enemy. They interfered in the election for sure. Trump's crew had many unusual contacts. This is worth looking into and Trump's actions do not put him in a good light. It is worth looking into. It would be easier to believe the guy that he knew of nothing if he was taking the election tampering seriously, but he is pretending it did not happen and even mentioned working on cyber secuirty with Russia.

As for Clinton, which if true would still not exonerate Trump in the both sides do it world, if she did something wrong than she should be investigated.

However, Uranium One was already investigated. Unless a fair bit of new evidence came out than why do it again for non-partisain reasons. For that matter, did she pass it single handily?

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Nope.

And I am not giving Clinton a pass. If she did something wrong that is new or new evidence comes out than they should look into things, but that still stands for Trump. Whom you seem happy to give a pass or ignore political attacks on our law enforcement.


    Quote:
    I want to know how Russia tried to effect the 2016 election. And I also want to know if payments of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation by business men connected with the Uranium One deal had any impact on that deal's approval. You certainly want answers on the former, but you're scared if someone wants answers on the latter. Other than the political party of those involved in each one, why is that? This is not a rhetorical question, I am interested in further insight from you.


Not sure if you are just not paying attention to the former or are in the bubble you are claiming I am in. Everybody, but Trump and some conservatives is pretty sure that Russia was involved with influencing the 2016 election. The methods were varied and I recommend looking into it. There may be more to find and that a foreign power may have been involved in our politics is something apparently something you are cool with.

If Clinton did something wrong than she should be investigated. I think you should check out a few sections of the Snope's article though. She did not have power to approve the deal on her own and did not have authority to do it alone. Various committees were involved.

I also have a problem with this coming from pretty much all Trump loyalsts just suddenly. As opposed having law enforcement bring the charges on their own. That is also what happened to Trump and Russia. The FBI had been looking into aspects of that for a while.

I am skeptical of political motivation in this case given the mechanics of how the approval works and because of who is bringing the charges and what their basis is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/19/making-sense-of-russia-uranium-and-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.b343d3371dc1

Another article that looks at it in a reasonable way. There is no doubt that it is shady for Clinton, but there is not much to go on. At least not that the public has heard about other than the donations. Which are troubling, but still. How do we selectively pick Clinton out of this. Did she have sway over the rest of the committee when they said she did not or other department heads?

Maybe she should be looked at in more detail, but I am more comfortable if it is not from total partisans like Trump, Nunes or conservative media in particular.

You will now say that the Russia thing is the same and ignore that it is not at all the same.

I am for any investigation being reopened if new evidence arises. I rather professional investigators look into it rather than get selective information from the White House, leading the charge, and the yes men associated with it.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      These may not be a big deal if Trump had not been demanding that it be done since the election was pretty much over.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Also, the constant attack by Trump and his lackies on the FBI and DoJ.



    Quote:
    Why do you so frequently use insulting terms such as "lackies" and "cronies" when referring to people you disagree with politically? It doesn't present the picture of an unbiased, open mind seeking truth.


Is that like you mocking scientists you do not agree with on climate change? Just wondering. Just pointing out that you should get off the high horse, as you have done the same.

I would not point that out save for the holier than though attitude in here. I could point out that you have always defended Trump. Even if to do so you point out that some other guy did something similar.

That is not a seeking of truth either.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I am sure that you are cool with it,



    Quote:
    Are you "sure", or are you guessing?


I would take the wager over it. I would always wager that you come down on the conservative side and Trump defending side. Regardless of facts in the given case. Even when facts were either clear or against you.

In fact, have seen you dismiss sources out of hand to do so in the past.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      but it is not a good look to seemingly replace the folks investigating you and replacing career people with whatever cronies can be found.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Like I said, supporting law enforcement as convenient and politically useful is pretty much Trump's m.o.



    Quote:
    Not really pertinent to the point of the discussion, but you shouldn't say "du jour of the day", as you do above. It translates to "of the day of the day", which is redundant and repetitive.


Point. Although, it probably would be taken better if you do this sort of thing while not accusing everybody else you disagree with as a political hack while you are only ever taking one political side as well.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2017 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2017 Powermad Software