politics thread

[j_y19]

I think there is a very real reason Trump was unwilling to release his tax returns as every candidate for the last 40 years has and as he preaches "transparency". What is he hiding? I think that's a valid question.

We can question it all we want. But "it smells fishy" is no reason for an investigation. Because who is next and for what reason? Because you look different? DGF, it seems like you are more interested in revenge when you start allowing actions like this.

 

[j_y19]

And I would feel alot more sympathy for the situation if the previous President did not have to deal with six years of congress fighting him on every measure, and now currently doing everything they can to remove anything he did and to hell with the consequences. I hoped he would grow into the office and be a President for everyone. From what i see, if you dont kiss the ring.. he would sooner deport you.

Oh, I agree that some of the shit the right pulled on Obama was just as suspect. Donald with his whole birther claims sure led that list. Again, I'm not a fan of the guy, but I am concerned about Congressional violation of rights for anyone whom they don't like. That is a slippery slope.

 

[j_y19]

What did Bill's affair have to do with Whitewater? Again the investigation goes where the evidence takes it. You appear to be in favor of an investigator simply overlooking evidence of possible crimes as it's off target from the initial investigation. That is simply not going to happen, nor should it. If crimes are discovered it's his job to follow up on that. As Americans we have right to know if our leader or his staff is breaking the law, any law, and they should be held accountable. Again I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take.

By continuing to point out that collusion is not a crime you continue to act as if it's OK and should not be investigated. It's not OK and we need to know exactly what happened.

I will no longer reply to "what about.....?" We are discussing President Trump and what has been found in this investigation. Obama or anyone else does not belong in the discussion. But for the record I have posted repeatedly that when Obama lied it was wrong too.

Sessions could not stay involved in the investigation for obvious reasons, he was partial and was already hindering the investigation with his convenient bout of amnesia. You can not have a fair, complete investigation if one of the key plays is a huge backer of the guy under investigation and constantly throwing up road blocks. So he "chose" to recuse himself because he had no choice, he obviously didn't want to.

Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a few years, but the Whitewater inquiry did not uncover Bill and Monica. Linda Tripp divulged that to a person who worked under Starr. Starr was informed and let Congress know. Congress took it from there.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

We can question it all we want. But "it smells fishy" is no reason for an investigation. Because who is next and for what reason? Because you look different? DGF, it seems like you are more interested in revenge when you start allowing actions like this.

Oh I made no secrets that I hate this son of a bitch. But I think given the situation it's a legit question to ask, what is he hiding and why is he the first candidate in 40 years to take this position? And again he is preaching transparency at every stop, do you not think he is being hypocritical by refusing to release this document?

And this tax return issue is not the reason they launched the investigation as you are stating above. They started this investigation because their was information revealed that warranted an investigation. The tax return is not what they are investigating, but since they are investigating his ties to Russia it is a document that should be reviewed.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a few years, but the Whitewater inquiry did not uncover Bill and Monica. Linda Tripp divulged that to a person who worked under Starr. Starr was informed and let Congress know. Congress took it from there.

Correct. The point is he got information totally unrelated to the target of the initial investigation and he did not say "well this has nothing to do with Whitewater so I'll just ignore it". No he followed up on it and that is what led to the Clinton impeachment. If Mueller in the course of his investigation uncovered crimes, which he obviously did, he would take the same approach only a different route as Clinton did not commit a crime. He would not simply inform Congress, he would look into it himself.

But again the point is you do not ignore evidence or information simply because it is unrelated to the initial investigation focus. It's the job of the investigator to follow up on that information. That's not a witch hunt, that's not picking on Trump. That's his job.

 

[j_y19]

Oh I made no secrets that I hate this son of a bitch. But I think given the situation it's a legit question to ask, what is he hiding and why is he the first candidate in 40 years to take this position? And again he is preaching transparency at every stop, do you not think he is being hypocritical by refusing to release this document?

And this tax return issue is not the reason they launched the investigation as you are stating above. They started this investigation because their was information revealed that warranted an investigation. The tax return is not what they are investigating, but since they are investigating his ties to Russia it is a document that should be reviewed.

He is a hypocrite. No argument there. But hypocrisy is not illegal. The IRS has his tax returns and if Mueller thought they were relevant, he could get them. So why does Nancy need them?

 

[skinsdad62]

There is not a chance in Hell Trump fired Comey "for other reasons". That is nonsense, he fired him after he refused to take it easy on Flynn as Trump had requested which was a clear attempt to control the investigation. HIS investigation and that is wrong, period. Any other reason is just an excuse from a guy who lies more than he brushes his teeth. He wanted protection and felt this guy didn't want to play by his rule regarding an investigation into his campaign. And that is incredibly wrong.

Of course he should be able to investigate me if he came across information during the Russian investigation that needs to be followed up on. Highly unlikely obviously but again investigators go where the evidence takes it. This is ALWAYS the case and not unique here. And there is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Keep in mind Ken Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater. Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair that was discovered during that affair. Why the hell was Starr even looking into that affair? That wasn't close to a crime and a Hell of a lot more inconsequential than what Mueller is looking at. Now THAT can be considered a which hunt out to get his target. If Mueller is finding actually crimes, and multiple indictments and guilty pleas clearly show he is finding them, then what's wrong with an investigator investigating other crimes discovered during an investigation? Again it happens all the time. When investigators find crimes they pursue them, why would you want it any other way regardless of the target? You actually want our law enforcement to overlook felonies and just ignore the evidence and let offenders off the hook? Why on Earth would you want that?

When you say Russian collusion is not a crime you come off dismissing it as no big deal. Well I assure you it's a huge deal to even think that a campaign may have enlisted the help of a hostile foreign government to influence our election. . Considering Trump has financial interests in Russia the potentially issues here are terrifying.

As for Hillary and the dossier I'm not sure that's even close to the same thing. Hiring a former British intelligence officer to look into Trump/Russia connections is not exactly the same as the possibility of Trump's clan making back room deals with Russia, again the possibility of that happening and what it means is terrifying.

you need to read up way better on comey because you are wrong , same with mueller

 

[j_y19]

Correct. The point is he got information totally unrelated to the target of the initial investigation and he did not say "well this has nothing to do with Whitewater so I'll just ignore it". No he followed up on it and that is what led to the Clinton impeachment. If Mueller in the course of his investigation uncovered crimes, which he obviously did, he would take the same approach only a different route as Clinton did not commit a crime. He would not simply inform Congress, he would look into it himself.

But again the point is you do not ignore evidence or information simply because it is unrelated to the initial investigation focus. It's the job of the investigator to follow up on that information. That's not a witch hunt, that's not picking on Trump. That's his job.

I understand your point and agree with it. But I ask again, when does it stop? It starting to sound like, for you, it stops once Trump is in jail.
Mueller now has 4 or 5 convictions from this investigation of Trump's minions. Not one of these convictions is associated with anything to do with Russian interference. And these are guys that would have been involved. Its becoming clear that he will get nothing on Trump for what he was impaneled to do. So do you just keep it open so you can continue to dig into other areas? Is that where our Justice system is heading?

 

[skinsdad62]

in a previous post DGF stated that the watergate investigation and the iran contra investigation took longer then the BS russian investigation

watergate investigation started after the june 17 break in on the 18th of june 1972 it lasted till before aug 9 1974 when president nixon resigned , that is less then 2 years

the iran contra investigation started nov 25 1986 -26 feb 1987 at which time the court proceedings started or less then a year

records for the IG , senate and congressional testimony indicate the trump russian probe started in july of 2016 and as of this wring we are into dec 2018 over 2 years and counting

the fact is this investigation and the fisa warrants were obtained under false pretenses using a bought and paid for dossier obtained from an opposition party bought and paid for by the DNC and HRC campaign that MR comey just admitted wasnt verified as required by law

comey violated several laws during the email investigation and subsequent trump investigation too include leaking classified information leading to the apt of mueller

i have listed these violations backed up by the corresponding laws and FBI regulations way earlier in this thread

to say that this stormy daniels BS and the other woman meant people wouldnt have supported him is just plain dumb in lue of the october surprise NBC video . . his supporters saw that video and determined that HRC's vision of where she wanted to take the country was/is something they couldnt stomach

over and over again leftist simply just dont know why Trump was elected . its either trumper voters are stupid or racists or woman are under their white husbands thumb instead of just looking at the policies of liberals / socialists and understand a great great many people oppose that direction

now until you understand that you will chase racists ghost that arent there . keep listening to the MSM , and how they dismiss what is easily seen and downplay it as " conspiracies "

 

[j_y19]

in a previous post DGF stated that the watergate investigation and the iran contra investigation took longer then the BS russian investigation

watergate investigation started after the june 17 break in on the 18th of june 1972 it lasted till before aug 9 1974 when president nixon resigned , that is less then 2 years

the iran contra investigation started nov 25 1986 -26 feb 1987 at which time the court proceedings started or less then a year

records for the IG , senate and congressional testimony indicate the trump russian probe started in july of 2016 and as of this wring we are into dec 2018 over 2 years and counting

the fact is this investigation and the fisa warrants were obtained under false pretenses using a bought and paid for dossier obtained from an opposition party bought and paid for by the DNC and HRC campaign that MR comey just admitted wasnt verified as required by law

comey violated several laws during the email investigation and subsequent trump investigation too include leaking classified information leading to the apt of mueller

i have listed these violations backed up by the corresponding laws and FBI regulations way earlier in this thread

to say that this stormy daniels BS and the other woman meant people wouldnt have supported him is just plain dumb in lue of the october surprise NBC video . . his supporters saw that video and determined that HRC's vision of where she wanted to take the country was/is something they couldnt stomach

over and over again leftist simply just dont know why Trump was elected . its either trumper voters are stupid or racists or woman are under their white husbands thumb instead of just looking at the policies of liberals / socialists and understand a great great many people oppose that direction

now until you understand that you will chase racists ghost that arent there . keep listening to the MSM , and how they dismiss what is easily seen and downplay it as " conspiracies "

They are going to get nothing on him for Russian collusion. Mueller might, however, get him on campaign violations. But he will need provable facts. Tapes, emails, etc. Cohen's testimony alone won't do it. It's one liar's word against another's. Campaign laws are a bit different. Ignorance of these laws is a valid defense. If Trump didn't know the payments were illegal, he can't be held responsible. That's fucked up. But that is the way it is. So if trump changes his story again and says he never knew such payments were violating campaign laws and he just relied on his lawyer (cohen) to do it with in the laws, then Mueller will have a tough case. Which is probably why nothing has been brought against Trump. The worst thing Mueller could do is indict a sitting President and then not be able to prove it.

 

[skinsdad62]

They are going to get nothing on him for Russian collusion. Mueller might, however, get him on campaign violations. But he will need provable facts. Tapes, emails, etc. Cohen's testimony alone won't do it. It's one liar's word against another's. Campaign laws are a bit different. Ignorance of these laws is a valid defense. If Trump didn't know the payments were illegal, he can't be held responsible. That's fucked up. But that is the way it is. So if trump changes his story again and says he never knew such payments were violating campaign laws and he just relied on his lawyer (cohen) to do it with in the laws, then Mueller will have a tough case. Which is probably why nothing has been brought against Trump. The worst thing Mueller could do is indict a sitting President and then not be able to prove it.

i will refer you to john edwards case . what happened to him and his was much worse

 

[Stymietee]

See, this is the type of response I don't get. What difference does it make what political party they are affiliated with? Shouldn't the goal be to identify all of the nefarious wrong doers in our system that are stealing from you and I?

It's comments like this, on both sides, that lend credence to the belief of many that this is all politically motivated. We aren't really concerned with eliminating corruption in entirety, only on the side that I don't affiliate with.

OK, since you've indicated that "this is the type of response I don't get." Let me explain to you why you don't get it.
As a stand alone response you would be absolutely correct in calling me out for making it. However in context, something that you've admittedly not taken the time to do, you would have understood that my response was a direct reflection to other posters who are of a certain political leaning attempting to spin the actions of these republicans as those of the opposition.

I don't mind that you've taken the time to respond, and your point concerning partisanship is well taken, but I would appreciate some credit for posting a response that is contextually directly related to previous concerns.

 

[skinsdad62]

Hillary Clinton broke the law with her email practices and the government let her off the hook. That’s really not even a question anymore.

The facts clearly back that up. In fact, we are still talking about her emails because she’s been so secretive and evasive about the situation.

On Friday, something new developed.

A judge had ordered Hillary to provide more information about her emails and she did.

Her response was laughable.

Judicial Watch appeared in a DC federal court last month on a motion to compel more testimony from Hillary Clinton as well as to make public video recordings of depositions of top Clinton aides such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

The court ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer more questions about the setting up of her private server under oath.

As expected, Hillary Clinton responded to the court order with her usual arrogance — she said she set up the server for “convenience.”

There is no way of getting around Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

She really doesn’t care at all about how serious this is.

She broke the law. Plain and simple.

Another reason comey had to be fired not some MSM left wing propaganda you listen to

 

[Stymietee]

Did you listen to the tape? I have very little doubt that Trump was aware of and instructed payments to be made. However, this tape proves nothing. It would never hold up in court and and prosecutor worth their salt would never even try to use it.

Again you've jumped in without understand why this was my response. In fact this was a response to YOUR inquiry, remember? Just in case here it is.

[QUOTE="j_y19, post: 12586744, member: 4983"]Sty, this tape you refer to, what exactly does Trump say? Does he specifically state that the money is to stop her from talking about their affair? Its an important distinction and the wording is very important.[/QUOTE]

I supplied the link to the tape because YOU asked what was on it. (see: underlined above) How you want to apply it I'm sure will be different from the way it's being related to investigators. Trumps biggest problem is, he talks too damned much and it will be his own words that betray him.

 

[gkekoa]

I care about our leader following the law, allowing the investigation to proceed without his interference, and to hold those accountable should crimes be discovered. We need to allow Mueller to fully investigate this and all the side roads he has found as he investigates an administration full of people who broke the law. He should be able to do his job without his target and supporters constantly attacking and attempting to discredit a man with tremendous integrity. And he should be allowed to take as much time as necessary to complete the job. We have not seen evidence of collusion because the report has not been released. I’m NOT saying it happened, just pointing out how not seeing any evidence to date does not mean it didn’t happen.

I fail to see how this is an unreasonable position to take. I don’t understand the need to reference Obama or Hillary but as I said I think lying about Benghazi was wrong too. But we are discussed President Trump, the investigative and how he has surround himself with a cabinet full of crooks and liars against after the promise to drain the swamp.

So, if he has unquestioned integrity, why did he appoint ALL Clinton cronies to do this investigation? Why has he deviated to such an extreme degree, one may call that unConstitutional, in this investigation? Are you seriously telling me that this investigation into Russia hasn’t had him uncover anything on anybody from the Clinton side?

Didn’t Obama appoint a man convicted of tax evasion for a cabinet position?

 

[Rowdy]

Ok, I say moving forward every presidential candidate should have their communications tapped and have theirselves along with friends and families investigated by the fbi. I wonder how many candidates we’d have? I’m gonna say none

 

[Sharkinva]

They are going to get nothing on him for Russian collusion. Mueller might, however, get him on campaign violations. But he will need provable facts. Tapes, emails, etc. Cohen's testimony alone won't do it. It's one liar's word against another's. Campaign laws are a bit different. Ignorance of these laws is a valid defense. If Trump didn't know the payments were illegal, he can't be held responsible. That's fucked up. But that is the way it is. So if trump changes his story again and says he never knew such payments were violating campaign laws and he just relied on his lawyer (cohen) to do it with in the laws, then Mueller will have a tough case. Which is probably why nothing has been brought against Trump. The worst thing Mueller could do is indict a sitting President and then not be able to prove it.

1. I think everyone is stuck on the wrong C word. Conspiracy is likely what Mueller is making a case for among other things.

2. They have Cohen and Pecker both saying Trump paid the hoes so as not to have it effect the election.

3. At the end of the day I think he indicts Don Jr, Jared and probably others.. trump will be at most an unindicted co-conspirator

 

[Stymietee]

Just because you are registered as something, does it actually make you that?

Money and power doesn’t care about affiliation.

Yep, and that is why I'm an independent. The rule of thumb goes like this, "“In politics, there are NO permanent friends or foes; ONLY permanent interest." How one choses to affiliate him/herself speaks to their true nature.

 

[Stymietee]

Of course not.

Do you actually believe he changed his mind or was it more of a “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” BTW, I know what he meant in this quote, and I agree with him.

Now, here is a blatant lie for you. “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.” Or is that lie OK?

Yes, changing your mind when new information comes to light is rather, well, typical.

C'mon man, give it up, there have been 98736562547573726464727467 hearings and investigations on Benghazi, if the congress wanted more security there they would have approved it prior to the attacks. There's a reason why they cannot find criminal or any other type of misconduct related to that event. They were responsible for those deaths and they know it!

 

[Stymietee]

Comey confirms he avoided standard procedure in ordering FBI agents to wh to interview Flynn, and basically coxed him in to answering questions without a lawyer present. They set up a trap on this highly decorated American!

Actually just the opposite is true, He had every opportunity to tell his own truth and that is what got his ass in trouble. There's also this little thing call the "right to remain silent" as well as the "right to have an attorney present" at the time of his questioning. Even lil Ray-Ray from around the way knows this. Tell me that this guy didn't know his rights, or the distinction between his facts and the actual facts.