politics thread

[gkekoa]

Again Dad it's not just collusion, it's all the other possible illegal activities that require a complete investigation. As I have said I never believed Trump was involved directly with Russia, I believed there was no collusion. But it sure was important enough to be looked at very very closely.

As I said before anyone who takes a hard look at the backgrounds of Robert Mueller and Donald Trump and have come to the conclusion that it's Mueller who is the crooked one is simply not reacting without a huge bias.

I firmly believe if there is concrete evidence of crimes committed by Trump you will dismiss them. You really won't care or will refuse to believe even if it's right in front of you. And that's why I believe The Base has lost all respect for Right vs Wrong, you only want your guy protected and that is simply wrong.

Why is it required to be looked at very, very closely? Did they have any legal evidence to support an investigation, known as cause?

As for Mueller and Trump, I believe both have likely been crooked in their careers. That being said, you can’t say I believe he is crooked, so let’s investigate him and try to find a crime. That is equivalent to small towns in the 60s seeing a black man they didn’t like and deciding to investigate him without cause. Both are wrong.

Concrete evidence...sure. How was it obtained? If it was obtained by a violation of Trump’s rights, I will have a problem with it, the same way I would have an issue with obtaining evidence on you illegally.

The first role of government is to protect your rights.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Let’s see the difference.

Hillary actually mishandled, on purpose, classified material.

Jared may have been a security risk not because of anything he did, but because he might screw up.

But the mindset is pretty clear. Jared may be a security risk, therefore he should not have been granted a top secret clearance. That should concern every American, not just liberals. But it's Trump so you give them all a pass. On everything.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And when proof surfaces he used campaign funds I am all ears . Until then it’s manure

And that's fine, although I still have my doubts that you won't find a way to excuse any evidence away. The problem is you are asking us to provide evidence when it's not been released yet.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Why is it required to be looked at very, very closely? Did they have any legal evidence to support an investigation, known as cause?

As for Mueller and Trump, I believe both have likely been crooked in their careers. That being said, you can’t say I believe he is crooked, so let’s investigate him and try to find a crime. That is equivalent to small towns in the 60s seeing a black man they didn’t like and deciding to investigate him without cause. Both are wrong.

Concrete evidence...sure. How was it obtained? If it was obtained by a violation of Trump’s rights, I will have a problem with it, the same way I would have an issue with obtaining evidence on you illegally.

The first role of government is to protect your rights.

But the weren't in search of a crime as you guys continue to maintain. An investigation goes where the evidence takes it and there is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Clinton was impeached over a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with Ken Starr's investigation into Whitewater. Few seemed to have a problem with that, even Democrats. I remember clearly that I believed Clinton should have been impeached, he looked me in the eyes and lied to me. But you guys do not appear to be acting this way, you will dismiss any evidence obtained it appears and I believe that is wrong. I believe nobody is above the law, especially our President.

 

[skinsdad62]

And that's fine, although I still have my doubts that you won't find a way to excuse any evidence away. The problem is you are asking us to provide evidence when it's not been released yet.

I am asking this because of the whole fisa thing which was done falsely by Clinton supporters in the FBI and DOJ . The fake dossier which Clinton paid for in collusion with 2 foreign govts which somehow mr mueller has forgotten about and his team in which virtually all of them are Clinton campaign donors . Now they want it sealed from the American public because their BS will be exposed . Let’s also talk about Adam Schiff and his meeting with Cohen prior to the recent testimony . And how about lanny Davis , his lawyer a Clinton lap dog . Perhaps if this investigation wasn’t so blatantly shady I would buy it . I have been right about this farce for 2 years while others have moved to goal posts again

 

[skinsdad62]

But the weren't in search of a crime as you guys continue to maintain. An investigation goes where the evidence takes it and there is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Clinton was impeached over a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with Ken Starr's investigation into Whitewater. Few seemed to have a problem with that, even Democrats. I remember clearly that I believed Clinton should have been impeached, he looked me in the eyes and lied to me. But you guys do not appear to be acting this way, you will dismiss any evidence obtained it appears and I believe that is wrong. I believe nobody is above the law, especially our President.

Clinton was impeached because he was accused of lying to Congress , a process crime , which was BS then and us BS. Now

 

[gkekoa]

But the mindset is pretty clear. Jared may be a security risk, therefore he should not have been granted a top secret clearance. That should concern every American, not just liberals. But it's Trump so you give them all a pass. On everything.

Everybody may be a security risk, as proven by Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material. It is 100% proven she was a security risk. You just got done saying Jared may be a risk.

Personally, I think Trump should have listened to the intelligence people. That being said, he was within his power to do what he did. Trump doesn’t need a pass because he was within his rights.

Now, let me ask you this. Let’s say you were an outsider and POTUS. The people who are advising you are the very people who are part of what you claim to want to drain. Wouldn’t you like to put people in place you actually trust?

 

[gkekoa]

But the weren't in search of a crime as you guys continue to maintain. An investigation goes where the evidence takes it and there is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Clinton was impeached over a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with Ken Starr's investigation into Whitewater. Few seemed to have a problem with that, even Democrats. I remember clearly that I believed Clinton should have been impeached, he looked me in the eyes and lied to me. But you guys do not appear to be acting this way, you will dismiss any evidence obtained it appears and I believe that is wrong. I believe nobody is above the law, especially our President.

Except they were in search of a crime. They called it collusion which isn’t a crime, but for arguments sake, let’s say it was. Now, let’s go back to the 60s black man scenario. Well, there was a robbery at some white dudes house. He gives the police a description. The police say this black man fits the description so we are going to investigate him. They find nothing related to the robbery, but they find out his best friend took out a bad loan, his wife lied on a loan application (more like made an error), found out the man had an extra person claimed on taxes six years ago when his son was no longer a legal dependent, then they get all three for lying during the investigation even though they simply were mistaken on a detail none of us could remember. Then they find out the robbery investigation was all a sham just to dig up dirt on a guy they didn’t like.

Clinton looked you in the eyes, under oath, and clearly lied. There is no grey area.

You do realize Obama looked you in the eyes and lied about Benghazi? He even went on TV and did speeches on the matter. Obama even got caught on hot mic telling the Russians to wait until after the election.

 

[Toadman005]

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Clinton was impeached because he was accused of lying to Congress , a process crime , which was BS then and us BS. Now

Boy I don't know about that. Perjury is a pretty good crime, you just can't have people lie to Congress as Michael Cohen has learned. I had no problem with Clinton's impeachment, I do not feel the President is above the law.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Except they were in search of a crime. They called it collusion which isn’t a crime, but for arguments sake, let’s say it was. Now, let’s go back to the 60s black man scenario. Well, there was a robbery at some white dudes house. He gives the police a description. The police say this black man fits the description so we are going to investigate him. They find nothing related to the robbery, but they find out his best friend took out a bad loan, his wife lied on a loan application (more like made an error), found out the man had an extra person claimed on taxes six years ago when his son was no longer a legal dependent, then they get all three for lying during the investigation even though they simply were mistaken on a detail none of us could remember. Then they find out the robbery investigation was all a sham just to dig up dirt on a guy they didn’t like.

Clinton looked you in the eyes, under oath, and clearly lied. There is no grey area.

You do realize Obama looked you in the eyes and lied about Benghazi? He even went on TV and did speeches on the matter. Obama even got caught on hot mic telling the Russians to wait until after the election.

Again the point was Clinton was impeached about an issue that had nothing to do with the initial investigation. Again an investigation goes where the evidence takes it, that is basic law enforcement. It exposed that piece of shit Paul Manafort who deserves everything that is coming to him. As a tax payer I would think you would feel the same way.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I am asking this because of the whole fisa thing which was done falsely by Clinton supporters in the FBI and DOJ . The fake dossier which Clinton paid for in collusion with 2 foreign govts which somehow mr mueller has forgotten about and his team in which virtually all of them are Clinton campaign donors . Now they want it sealed from the American public because their BS will be exposed . Let’s also talk about Adam Schiff and his meeting with Cohen prior to the recent testimony . And how about lanny Davis , his lawyer a Clinton lap dog . Perhaps if this investigation wasn’t so blatantly shady I would buy it . I have been right about this farce for 2 years while others have moved to goal posts again

Let's not forget Mueller was not the initial lead in this investigation. No that was James Comey, the guy who opened up the email investigation on Hillary a week before the election which pretty much proved that he had no left leaning bias. Comey was fired because he didn't allow President Trump to dictate the investigation so Trump fired him for not playing by Trump's rules. Now I always considered that the definition of obstruction but I'll let the lawyers work that all out.

Mueller is not the one to determine what will be release and what will not, that would be Trump's AG.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

BS. That wasn’t the narrative when all this started . It was collusion , collusion , collusion . What should be looked at is attempted coup to overthrow a duly elected president . The rigging of a democratic primary ,the illegal use of a fisa warrant to investigate an opposition campaign . The facts about his team are right there in front of you and I have posted numerous things through the IG inspection and congressional testimony proving my side . What concrete evidence do you have ? All you have is an accusation at best and a unfounded one at that . Trump did business with Russia ,so. What , so did the Clinton’s .

Trump also said he had no dealing with Russia after he was elected and that is now in question. Look unlike you I have made no declaration of guilt or innocence, stupid me I actually want to see the evidence before making any claims. I have simply said it's idiotic to dismiss the possibility with so much smoke in the air on a number of fronts.

 

[chillerdab]

Trump also said he had no dealing with Russia after he was elected and that is now in question. Look unlike you I have made no declaration of guilt or innocence, stupid me I actually want to see the evidence before making any claims. I have simply said it's idiotic to dismiss the possibility with so much smoke in the air on a number of fronts.

This, exactly.
The right wing to a tee.

But her emails...

 

[chillerdab]

Except they were in search of a crime. They called it collusion which isn’t a crime, but for arguments sake, let’s say it was. Now, let’s go back to the 60s black man scenario. Well, there was a robbery at some white dudes house. He gives the police a description. The police say this black man fits the description so we are going to investigate him. They find nothing related to the robbery, but they find out his best friend took out a bad loan, his wife lied on a loan application (more like made an error), found out the man had an extra person claimed on taxes six years ago when his son was no longer a legal dependent, then they get all three for lying during the investigation even though they simply were mistaken on a detail none of us could remember. Then they find out the robbery investigation was all a sham just to dig up dirt on a guy they didn’t like.

Clinton looked you in the eyes, under oath, and clearly lied. There is no grey area.

You do realize Obama looked you in the eyes and lied about Benghazi? He even went on TV and did speeches on the matter. Obama even got caught on hot mic telling the Russians to wait until after the election.

Are you worried about what kinds of things all politicians say over hot mics, or just democrats?

Just curouus of where your hypocrisy ends.

 

[Sharkinva]

Are you worried about what kinds of things all politicians say over hot mics, or just democrats?

Just curouus of where your hypocrisy ends.

To hell with a hot mic, thats usually accidental. My question is has and will always be.. when the statement was said on a live mic, broadcast on TV and repeated numerous times... but has to be put into "context"


Where the hell is the outrage from the right??

 

[ehb5]

So, how does it make it ignorant? Does she not support an organization on the watch list? I would say it is a reasonable thing to believe.




If you believe murder is evil, and you believe life begins at conception, then wouldn’t liberals be considered evil? If you believe evil is the enemy of good, then wouldn’t liberals be the enemy?

To your first question, it's about as reasonable and ignorant as calling Trump a Nazi.

To your second, no.

 

[ehb5]

First of all it is Libhater not muslim hater, secondly based on her tweets and the organization she supports and you giving her a pass is what's "ignorant as hell" and third based on all of that, yes her being a muslim with those views and people she supports she does not belong in our political system. Ask your professor about jihad that's one of the goals is to infiltrate our political system.

Oh right. Your name is libhater. Clearly you are a mature adult who couldn't possibly hate Muslims. You just don't want them in our government or country.

Riiiiiight.

 

[ehb5]

I don’t know , maybe the mountain of evidence showing it was that you get amnesia about

Oh yes. Now I see it. Right between the mountain of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and the mountain of evidence that moon landing was fake. There is is!

 

[Sharkinva]

Oh yes. Now I see it. Right between the mountain of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and the mountain of evidence that moon landing was fake. There is is!

Total side bender, but I never got how the folks who think the moon landing was faked are not totally up in arms over the mars rovers considering it took three days to get to the moon, but 8 1/2 months and $2.5B to send a remote controlled car to mars.