politics thread

[skinsdad62]

He has installed or nominated two Justices with the implied (actually express) intent of overturning Roe V Wade. He said as much when asked, that it would be automatic because andI qoute" Im putting Pro Life Justices on the Bench". He is building a court to further the agenda of the conservative right.

and obama put judges on the court to further the left wing agenda isnt that weaponizing the scotus to limit the 2nd amendment ?

and how many times have i heard from the left that president nixon/ bush 1/bush 2 and now Trump were going to end roe vs wade and we all were doomed because of it . and yet it hasnt happened. how mant more times are you going to cry wolf ?

there should be no litmus test for a nominee save 2 things . are you qualified and will you follow the constitution as written. the supreme court isnt and shouldnt be a political component

now i do tend to be pro life in my social life and pro choice in my political life . my feelings are abortion is murder and was first introduced to exterminate blacks and minorities that racist margeret sanger said needed to be killed like weeds in a field . she also was involved in the US eugenics program . it was hitler who used this to justify exterminating jews . good thing HRC 'admired her " but isnt called racist

now my conservative political side says the federal govt shouldnt tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their body . referring it back to the states would be the way it has to proceed . my double standard , if you will is i dont believe in a theocracy no matter how christian i am . that would make me no better the saudi arabia

now there are several things liberals can do to get abortion as a right in the constitution .

a ) draw up an amendment , get it passed and have it ratified by 3/4 of the states .

B) get a convention of states through article 5 of our constitution and have 3/4's of the states ratify it at the convention this making it a legal amendment to the constitution

now if the people truly want this then they can decide

unfortunately liberals have used federal courts as a tool to get their agenda passed when the fail at the ballot box or through congress

the people voted for trump as president . he was elected by our laws known to everyone , elections have consequences and selecting justices is one of the things a president gets to do .

i hated obamas picks because i dont believe kagan and sotomayer interpret the constitution , they legislate from the bench . but i have to eat those picks . but my world isnt blown up because it happened

now what this has to do with collusion? i dont know . seems like this is a policy you dont like which is ok

 

[skinsdad62]

Robert Mueller is. He has indicted 12 Russian military hackers for delving into the DNC affairs and election campaigning in 2016. After $50,000,000,000.00 the investigation has indicted the proverbial "HAM SANDWICH" as none of these Russians will ever enter the USA to give testimony on the matters of interest. Nearly 24 months of investigation has turned up nothing more that the typical dirty tricks that nation's use to disrupt another nation's elections.
On Friday RON ROSENSTEIN HAS admitted that the hacking business that was being tied to the Trump team in coordination with the 12 Russians DID NOT AFFECT A SINGLE VOTE NATIONWIDE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. Finally an honest assessment...is it time to turn out the lights on the GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT and his team of Page, Strozk , ROSENSTEIN and Lynch?

 

[skinsdad62]

Rosenstein's on RussianHacking indictments:


1. No Americans commited a crime.

2. There's no evidence it affected the election outcome.


One more thing:


This happened on Obama's watch & he did nothing to stop it.


Will FakeNews keep screaming collusion by the Trump campaign?

 

[skinsdad62]

Trump should offer to bring the accused Russkies back with him to defend themselves in court. We would all be grateful to them for forcing Mueller to finally produce evidence.

When one of the Russian firms earlier indicted decided to plead not guilty and ask for discovery, Mueller had a panic attack and desperately tried to avoid having to produce evidence...

notice most people are treating indictments as if they were verdicts. The actually use the indictments as evidence that the MuellerInvestigation is not a Witch Hunt!

 

[ehb5]

I will just leave this here

That was not a good look for Gowdy.

 

[ehb5]

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.

According to numerous news reports, Comey met directly with Mueller previous to his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources said that Comey’s opening statement and subsequent testimony were coordinated with Mueller.

At the hearing, Comey revealed that he had intentionally leaked material from a memo allegedly documenting a meeting with President Trump in order to help assure the appointment of a special counsel.

I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.


The DOJ and FBI have stated that Comey’s leaks were unauthorized and compared the disclosures to Wikileaks.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the DOJ on January 31, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). The lawsuit was filed after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 14, 2017 FOIA request seeking:

• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.
• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published.
• All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available.

On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:

In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”

An email from a redacted sender, apparently Comey, to Rybicki dated May 19 at 11:49 am reads:

Jim

I just got off a call with Senators Burr and Warner. They would like to have a hearing next Wednesday at which I testify, first in open session and then in closed, if necessary. I asked them not to announce it until I check with FBI/DOJ to see if you want to discuss anything before they do that. I told them I had asked for guidance on any institutional prerogatives and for the opportunity to review any documents FBI has produced that relate to me. I told them I would communicate with them by the end of the day to either ask them to hold announcing the Wednesday hearing or go ahead.

Many thanks.

Jim

On May 19 at 2:10 pm, Rybicki writes back:

Director: We just met to discuss the requests outlined in the two emails below. Before responding the General Counsel has asked me to confirm that you have discussed with the attorneys representing you, and that you are comfortable discussing these issues with us rather than communicating through your counsel.

On May 19 at 3:02 pm, a redacted sender, likely Comey, responds to Rybicki: “Yes and yes.”

Also in this chain, on May 19 at 4:11 pm, Rybicki writes to McCabe, FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich, former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, Brower, Elizabeth Beers and other redacted names:

Please see a DRAFT response to Director Comey (below). I will hold pending further direction….

Director:

In response to your emails below we have consulted with executive management here, including the General Counsel, and recommend the following:

1. That your counsel convey any acceptance or declinations to invitations to testify directly to the Committees.
2. That your counsel consult with Special Counsel Mueller to determine the timing of any such testimony and,
3. The Office of General Counsel stands ready to discuss with you in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel, institutional privileges or prerogatives that may be presented by any such testimony.

“These documents show that James Comey, who was fired by the president, nevertheless had easy, friendly access to the FBI as he prepped his infamous anti-Trump testimony to the Senate,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This collusion led to Comey’s attacking President Trump and misusing FBI records as part of a vendetta against the president.”

###

your source ebb , by his own words

Im not sure i understand what you think this shows or proves...

 

[ehb5]

again i have written my reason for skepticism . if he has anything on collusion then be my guest . after 2 years he hasnt gotten anything . it didnt happen

and i have posted numerous things that call into question his fairness and being called a douche wasnt one of them

You have to realize that he may very well have something and it may not be public yet. They aren't going to publicly broadcast the details of an ongoing investigation.

 

[ehb5]

if that were true but again there is a mountain of evidence that the FBI /DOJ were/are being corrupt in their investigations

now he fired an incompetent baboon , a right he does in fact have as head of the executive branch which both the DOJ/FBI fall under . the house and senate do in fact have oversight of the fbi and doj

there is a growing amount of evidence that both need that very oversight because of their corruption .

i am sorry but 2 years is plenty of time to come up with collusion

manafort was let go by Trump , so was flynn because flynn lied to the VP . a fact most have forgotten . manafort is charged with crimes that happened long before trump ran for office . pappadoupoulus said while drunk in a bar in britian he had "dirt on HRC from the russians " so what ? HRC had dirt with the steele dossier from the russians . did trump pay for the dirt ? not proven and in 2 years i think something would have come up

and how does he "stop " comey from anything by firing him ? comey is the only FBI agent alive who can investigate ? you think firing comey somehow stops mueller ? its a canard and again the IG report certainly gives plenty of support to trump about his firing


the truth is trump can fire sessions , rothstien muellerstrozk and page in addition to comey and mccabe that he already fired because he is head of the executive branch . that wouldnt be politically smart but he has that authority

we have a mid term election coming up in 5 months . typically one or both houses flip because the people sometimes get buyers remorse . they did that with obama or the winners get complacent and dont campaign hard enough

so pretty much if the republicans hold both houses then its an clear endorsement of trump and his policies . if not then the above scenario is in play with buyers remorse or complacency

and trump and his policies he put in place with executive orders or regulation reduction can all be undone by the next president . a fact obama must have missed on his way to the HRC coronation . a fact the press missed because they did everything to get HRC elected and when their BS polls didnt pan out they looked like fools

and the press in the US is nothing more then the propganda arm of the democratic party . dont believe me ? take up the challenge i gave you weeks ago . you will see it plain as day

No there is not. There is actually no evidence that the fbi and doj were/are being corrupt.

I think it's telling how badly trump and right wing media and by extension people like you want to put an end to this investigation. Theres no reason to rush it. Mueller will do his job and im sure he'll be thorough and fair. Remember he was considered a great choice to lead this investigation by both sides. When it is finally complete we can evaluate what has been found. Maybe trump is innocent! Maybe they find nothing! Maybe he's guilty and a traitor. I sure as hell don't know and neither do you.

So in the meantime stop trying to discredit an investigation just because you need to stick to party lines.

Now... what is this challenge that you're suggesting?

 

[ehb5]

shark totally blows by these facts . he cant see why anyone would question someones motives after this ? the thing is the people that gave HRC the pass after all of this ,and who loved HRC handle trump totally different .

sorry but a fake dossier paid for by an opposition party , not corroborated at all that came from the RUSSIANS themselves isnt grounds to investigate anyone but HRC

its unbelievable that gets passed over

Its not passed over at all. Its just not what happened. We know that the investigation into the campaign started thanks to papadopoulos before the dossier even reached the FBI. The dossier wasa part of the information presented to get the fisa warrant but it was only a part of it and it DID mention that it was likely politically biased.

 

[ehb5]

i am not concerned about protecting the president , i am concerend the fbi/doj planned a soft coup . big difference

the only one who got assistance from the russians was HRC and her bought and paid for steele dossier which you gloss over since the source was "russian "

and you brought up watergate not me

That's false and you know it is. Russia interfered with the elections in an effort to help Trump. To say hillary is the one who benefitted from russia is preposterous. They sought to STOP hillary.

 

[ehb5]

. I'm less concerned about Russian election interference, than I am my own government that weaponizes its criminal justice system to target its citizens for selective and political reasons, which it what they've done to Trump and others

Yet there's no evidence of that. Weird.

 

[ehb5]

Forget about Russian collusion, it’s now all about Russian confusion.

With President Trump meeting the Russian tyrant Putin in Helsinki, the story becomes what will happen between the two countries in the future, not what has happened in the past.

Here are a few observations.

The Mueller investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign or even Donald Trump himself cooperated with Russians in subverting the 2016 election is effectively over, and FBI guy Peter Strzok finished it off.

I am now branding Strzok “Reasonable Doubt” Peter. Mueller’s criminal case hangs on providing proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Strzok was involved in the investigation and, after being dismissed by Mueller for bias-laden texts, never investigated himself by the Special Counsel, doubt about the whole case has now been firmly established. Thus “Reasonable Doubt” Peter has sunk the collusion ship.

There may be peripheral indictments but Mueller’s evidence must be incontrovertible.

The left will be deeply disappointed by the outcome.

On the policy front, President Trump does not really care about Crimea or what Putin has done in the past, he simply wants a “deal” with Russia going forward. I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Trump is hoping for, but that should soon become apparent.

An agreement about reducing nuclear weapons is certainly in play - but I don’t see Putin cooperating on much else.

It should be clear to everyone that Vlad is a menace to the world and the President should certainly be aware of that. He is trying to neutralize the martinet going forward but that is not likely to happen. It’s worth a try but Vlad is a psychotic megalomaniac. Tough to play nice with a person like that.

Finally, Putin has already won the Russian collusion campaign.

Some of his high tech hackers have been indicted by Mueller but so what? They will not likely be apprehended anytime soon.

Their interference in the 2016 election has succeeded in embarrassing our current president with ongoing allegations, gravely harming the FBI, creating partisan hatred among the American populace, and pretty much destroying the image of the American press as a seeker of truth.

I’d say that’s a huge overall victory for Putin the Disrupter. Wouldn’t you?

Too bad Vlad can’t take a victory lap. But that’s impossible.

As he will tell the world this week, he and his country did not do a thing.

Yea this really sounds like the unbiased news coverage ive been missing out on *eyeroll*

 

[Rowdy]

@ehb5 Whats your take on Kavenaugh? Do you like the nomination?

 

[Rowdy]

@ehb5 Next question. Do you think Trump is doing anything right for this Country?

 

[skinsdad62]

That's false and you know it is. Russia interfered with the elections in an effort to help Trump. To say hillary is the one who benefitted from russia is preposterous. They sought to STOP hillary.

not false true

 

[skinsdad62]

Yet there's no evidence of that. Weird.

there is a mountain of evidence , read the IG report

 

[skinsdad62]

Its not passed over at all. Its just not what happened. We know that the investigation into the campaign started thanks to papadopoulos before the dossier even reached the FBI. The dossier wasa part of the information presented to get the fisa warrant but it was only a part of it and it DID mention that it was likely politically biased.

its exactly what happened the fisa dossier was used and it was a major part of it .

 

[skinsdad62]

No there is not. There is actually no evidence that the fbi and doj were/are being corrupt.

I think it's telling how badly trump and right wing media and by extension people like you want to put an end to this investigation. Theres no reason to rush it. Mueller will do his job and im sure he'll be thorough and fair. Remember he was considered a great choice to lead this investigation by both sides. When it is finally complete we can evaluate what has been found. Maybe trump is innocent! Maybe they find nothing! Maybe he's guilty and a traitor. I sure as hell don't know and neither do you.

So in the meantime stop trying to discredit an investigation just because you need to stick to party lines.

Now... what is this challenge that you're suggesting?

yes there is read the IG report

 

[skinsdad62]

That was not a good look for Gowdy.

it was a great look for him and he got right to the BS

 

[skinsdad62]

again what i dont get from the" conservative" ebb is what about fusion GPS and its links to HRC and the FBI as i have shown above . how it is a member of a foriegn policy panel gets into a situation where he says the russians have dirt on hillary , with no evidence only talk , and that ignites obama into wiretapping an opposition campaign and putting 2 spies in it , yet HRC campaign buys a dossier through steele via the russians and that warrants nothing ?

my next question is after all the emails released by the IG , i still cant find a pro trump one , from either investigation . not one but yet i am to buy there was no bias ? how many emails did strozk and page put out there that revealed their love of HRC and their disdain for trump ? yet the "conservative " ebb says there is no evidence , none whatsoever and forget about what they wrote and what they did ,

over and over again i ask how can you write an exoneration letter BEFORE you interview a suspect. ? and why am i not to have skepticism over it ?

mueller indicted 12 russians for hacking the DNC . your boy rosenstein said NO AMERICANS WERE INVOLVED , so how is there collusion ? this is what you are accusing trump of . shark and others have now said it isnt about collusion anymore but other things , yet i keep hearing about collusion

truth be told i wouldnt trust rosenstein because the hack job had to be done inside the HRC/DNC campaign due to the download speed . it had to be done with a thumbnail drive which had to be done from the inside . also his hands are all over the fake dossier fisa warrant

the crux of this matter is this , peter strozk changed the wording in comey's speech from grossly negligent (which is a crime ) to careless (which isnt ) even though the evidence warranted the prior wording .

i have handled classified information and what she did was against the law and the bs reasoning she gave are lies . you cant be a sec of state and not know what the "c " was . . everyone who handles classified information gets trained on this . if she faked the training she again broke the law . if she handled classified information without the training she broke the law .

add to it that 6 foriegn powers hacked her server and got the classified information

now i am supposed to buy that 30000 subpoened emails were all about a wedding ? she bleached bit the emails and i am supposed to buy there was nothing incriminating there ? cant even be skeptical ? then she smashed her blackberries ? cant be skeptical there either ? no obstruction there either huh , just business as usual and i am a conspiracy nut for even scratching my head ?

the people that allowed this to go on are the same people mueller has/had on his team and i cant be skeptical of the motives here ? 2 yrs and no collusion evidence at all . tons of rumors about smoking guns that all go to the scrap heap of broken dreams

why hasnt the DNC let the FBI look at their hacked servers ? "hey FBI we've been hacked " FBI "lets us look at the servers " DNC "nevermind "

how that happens in this country is beyond me ? the FBI storm trooped cohens office but they say "pretty please" to the DNC but that is fair , right ebb