monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Lash,

Quote:

You’re an apologist for establishment democrats.

I disagree with that characterization. Sometimes the political behavior of establishment politicians can be explained without resorting to blanket condemnation, vituperative denunciation, and ideological excommunication. Traditional politicians are often compromised by their need to satisfy different constituencies, especially when they are running for national office. For instance, I've defended Bernie Sanders for his support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Not because I agreed with him but because he was a representative at the time and was speaking in the interest of his rural constituents. I felt that the criticism he was getting from the left needed to be put in context. I defended him when he said "all lives matter" too, not as an "apologist" but because I felt the criticism he was getting was misdirected and smacked entirely of excessive "PC".

0 Replies

@Lash,

What is all this garbage about the Clinton's? Bill is no longer president and Hillary will never be. More republican propaganda attempting to equate little lying Clinton to huge crooked constantly lying Trump. Remind me again. Is lash a democrat or a conservative.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

Lash is somebody who says using presidential power to attempt to coerce people to lie to a grand jury is wrong, no matter why it’s done or which alphabet you have behind your name.

I’m a goddamn independent.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Also a bit foul mouthed.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

What is all this garbage about the Clinton's? Bill is no longer president and Hillary will never be.

Letting Bill Clinton off the hook strips you of credibility when you try to complain about Republicans allegedly committing the same crimes.

RABEL222 wrote:

More republican propaganda attempting to equate little lying Clinton to huge crooked constantly lying Trump.

Interesting that you associate facts and reality with the Republican position.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

If there was substantial evidence Bill Clinton tried to influence witnesses, then he should have been charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office. Why wasn't he? I honestly want to know, not defending or anything.

Bill Clinton took a plea bargain with the prosecutor where he paid a $25,000 fine and lost his law license for 5 years.

Given that the Democrats were insisting that they are above the law, there was little chance that he could have been convicted.

But he committed obstruction when he sent Betty Currie out to hide the gifts that he had given Lewinsky before investigators could find them.

He committed obstruction again when he tried to coach Betty Curry on her testimony.

And he committed conspiracy to obstruct when he and Lewinsky reached an understanding to deceive the investigation and conceal their relationship.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

I absolutely have been today.
I’ll take it down a notch.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You do realize your reasoning can be turned the other way don't you? Trump has tried to shut the investigation into himself down. Not sure how much more obstructing you can get.

Moreover, it was never a witch-hunt but concerned national security issues of Russia hacking into our computers systems and running a propaganda campaign. Trump whole issue so far has been about a perception of his not having won on his own steam rather than worry about national security issues as he should as President of the United States. If he had never started trying to shut it down, from day one, none of this would have happened. From day one, all he has done is lie and allow others to knowingly lie about anything connected to Russia no matter what it was. If he didn't go down that road, then he wouldn't have had two years of an investigation on his back.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Sorry for toplofty myself.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

You do realize your reasoning can be turned the other way don't you? Trump has tried to shut the investigation into himself down. Not sure how much more obstructing you can get.

Moreover, it was never a witch-hunt but concerned national security issues of Russia hacking into our computers systems and running a propaganda campaign. Trump whole issue so far has been about a perception of his not having won on his own steam rather than worry about national security issues as he should as President of the United States. If he had never started trying to shut it down, from day one, none of this would have happened. From day one, all he has done is lie and allow others to knowingly lie about anything connected to Russia no matter what it was. If he didn't go down that road, then he wouldn't have had two years of an investigation on his back.

The accumulating evidence suggests it was the Obama Administration that ignored the Russian activity, which started in 2014. The notion that it was a sudden interest in Russian activity that moved this administration to belatedly act at the first moment it appeared Trump might win the Republican nomination is contradicted by the facts of the many - indeed unprecedented - unmaskings of intercepted conversations with members of the trump campaign staff.

Now that we know there was no illegal collusion on Trump's part or that of his staff, his anger and indignation at the illegal activity of the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies becomes more understandable.

It appears increasingly likely that there will be more investigations of the origins of the Trump investigation by the Obama Administration and its relation to the fairly obvious coverup for Hillary Clinton's crimes in handling classified material - particularly in terms of the small cabal of FBI senior staffers who were continuously involved in both.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Now that we know there was no illegal collusion on Trump's part or that of his staff, his anger and indignation at the illegal activity of the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies becomes more understandable.

There was a lot of smoke; why blame the FBI for conducting a search for a fire?

The lying and the secrecy suggested that Trump's campaign, and maybe Trump himself, had something to hide. Flynn pled guilty. There was the meeting at Trump Tower. There was massive Russian disinformation on social media and reports that voter rolls were being breached, there was widespread hacking and leaking by Russia. It was an alarming situation and called for a rapid investigation. Investigating possibly treasonous crimes is not illegal. This administration, and every citizen in this country, should be thankful that the investigation was done and relieved that the president didn't break any laws. And if it had been found that Trump conspired with Russia (which I never believed, by the way) it would have behooved every citizen in the country to feel thankful as well.

3 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

There was a lot of smoke; why blame the FBI for conducting a search for a fire?

I'm afraid george has been soaking in a warm bath of comforting right wing spin. He may even hold that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is being unfairly victimized, that she was merely guilty of a slip of the tongue or that every President has told over 9000 lies 3 years in. Hard to say.

1 Reply

@blatham,

“Soaking in a warm bath of right wing spin”...
So evocative...😄

1 Reply

@hightor,

Unfortunately for your argument we now know that, apart from the salacious hit piece, paid for by the Clinton campaign, there was nothing with which to link Trump to Russia or their disruptive internet activity. Despite this the FBI monitored Trump's Campaign phones without telling him, and used, probably illegally, unmasked material to build a case than has now been rather thoroughly discredited.

It's odd that the readily available (to the FBI) fact that the Clinton Campaign paid for (through a law firm they hired) a Russian sourced hit piece on Trump itself didn't raise any alarms. Strangely, despite the obvious fact that it was indeed intended to affect the election, and the Russian Intelligence services clearly knew about it, no one has called it collusion.

Finally it appears that no one has seriously considered what might have been Putin's perception of the two candidates. He was by then thoroughly familiar with the flaccid Obama Administration policies with respect to both Russia and Iran and, as well, the whispered "Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election" and of course Hillary's comic, "reset button". He was also aware of Trump's announced intent to promptly expand production of shale oil and gas, and export both. This was a direct threat to the market prices for commodities on which Russia depends heavily to prop up its otherwise weak economy. The objective evidence is that Putin had much more to fear from a Trump presidency than one headed by the Sec. State he had just bribed to sell him most of North America's Uranium production.

0 Replies

Fact check analysis:
What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-analysis-what-attorney-general-barr-said-vs-what-the-mueller-report-said/ar-BBW5TN5?ocid=UE13DHP

0 Replies

AP FACT CHECK:
Trump team's distortions on Mueller report.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ap-fact-check-trump-teams-distortions-on-mueller-report/ar-BBW86JV?ocid=UE13DHP

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

You do realize your reasoning can be turned the other way don't you?

I don't think it can be. Republicans may have held the position in 1998 that Presidents should be removed from office when they commit serious felonies, but it is legitimate for Republicans to modify that position now that Democrats have declared themselves above the law.

revelette1 wrote:

Trump has tried to shut the investigation into himself down. Not sure how much more obstructing you can get.

Obstruction is when someone tries to impede an investigation that the government is pursuing.

When the government merely decides to not pursue an investigation, that isn't obstruction.

I wish it were. You have no idea how much I'd love to throw Bill Clinton back in the faces of the Democrats and have Trump get away with actual obstruction. If Trump actually obstructed justice and then flagrantly got away with it, to me that would be almost as good as winning the lottery. But this really isn't obstruction.

revelette1 wrote:

Moreover, it was never a witch-hunt but concerned national security issues of Russia hacking into our computers systems and running a propaganda campaign.

If Democrats had been concerned about national security, they would have pushed for an investigation into how our election was compromised and how to protect it in the future.

Instead they deliberately pushed for an investigation that would not do those things, but would instead single-mindedly look for any criminal offenses (no matter how trivial) that it could prosecute members of the Trump Administration over.

That's a witch hunt.

revelette1 wrote:

Trump whole issue so far has been about a perception of his not having won on his own steam rather than worry about national security issues as he should as President of the United States. If he had never started trying to shut it down, from day one, none of this would have happened. From day one, all he has done is lie and allow others to knowingly lie about anything connected to Russia no matter what it was. If he didn't go down that road, then he wouldn't have had two years of an investigation on his back.

Trump is not responsible for Democrats pushing to make this solely about criminal prosecutions (even for trivial offenses) instead of trying to protect our elections from foreign interference.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

There was a lot of smoke; why blame the FBI for conducting a search for a fire?

The lying and the secrecy suggested that Trump's campaign, and maybe Trump himself, had something to hide. Flynn pled guilty. There was the meeting at Trump Tower. There was massive Russian disinformation on social media and reports that voter rolls were being breached, there was widespread hacking and leaking by Russia. It was an alarming situation and called for a rapid investigation. Investigating possibly treasonous crimes is not illegal. This administration, and every citizen in this country, should be thankful that the investigation was done and relieved that the president didn't break any laws. And if it had been found that Trump conspired with Russia (which I never believed, by the way) it would have behooved every citizen in the country to feel thankful as well.

I'm concerned that all of the leftists in the country are secretly committing monstrous crimes.

Let's have the FBI and IRS go over leftist lives with a fine-toothed comb and then prosecute leftists for any wrongdoing that is discovered no matter how trivial.

0 Replies

Trump, Giuliani attack Russia investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/trump-giuliani-attack-russia-investigation/ar-BBVXTSK?ocid=UE13DHP

0 Replies

AP FACT CHECK:
Trump camp suggests AG found illegal spying.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ap-fact-check-trump-camp-suggests-ag-found-illegal-spying/ar-BBVWlw7?ocid=UE13DHP

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know