Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SleepingGiantFan

Barr's new authority over declassification

Recommended Posts

I’ve long advocated to declassify everything and let the chips fall where they may.  If they do I have a feeling quite a few from the current and past administrations will be going to jail.  Let’s get this party started.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Respectfully, you must have gotten that straight from FoxNews and/or similar right-wing sources since half of it is simply wrong.

Mueller DID make a "no collusion conclusion," you're correct about that. In other words, he made both "findings of FACT" and "conclusions of LAW" on that issue.

But as to obstruction of justice, Mueller made "findings of FACT" (citing 10 questionable acts by Trump) but he stopped short of making "conclusions of LAW." It's not crystal clear why Mueller didn't make a conclusion of guilt or innocence on the latter issue but the reason appears to be the DOJ's historical policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, the rationale for which is the potentially huge amount of time the usual criminal procedure can take. As such, if evidence exists that a sitting president may have engaged in criminal conduct, as Mueller found, impeachment is the proper procedure to be used to decide whether the president thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors."*

In the nineties, the "Republicans" impeached Bill Clinton because it appeared he might have committed criminal perjury during his testimony over the Lewinsky thing. As someone who was then a Democrat, I thought that was entirely proper and the inevitable impeachment of Trump is going to be equally proper even assuming that, like Clinton, Trump manages to remain in office because 2/3 of the Senate won't vote to remove him.

 

* Again with respect, the proper process to resolve that with finality is absolutely not to allow an attorney general appointed to his job by the suspected wrongdoer and who had already written an 18-page memo condemning the special prosecutor procedure make the final call. That would be horrible public policy.

Okay, and here we are!  Let's subpoena every blessed financial document Trump has in his history.   Go team!

There's just got to be evidence of obstruction in a six-year-old bank statement.  Hoorah!

Is there an adult in the room?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Okay, and here we are!  Let's subpoena every blessed financial document Trump has in his history.   Go team!

There's just got to be evidence of obstruction in a six-year-old bank statement.  Hoorah!

Is there an adult in the room?

Steve Bannon was the chief strategist for Trump's campaign for five months. After Trump took office, Bannon was in Trump's cabinet for seven months. At some point, Bannon told Trump biographer MIchael Wolff that he expected Trump to be culpable of money laundering and perhaps income tax evasion.If you've seen any of the various programs I have on Trump's business practices, you would be concerned not only about that Bannon comment to Wolff, which Bannon hasn't ever retracted to my knowledge, you would be concerned about Trump's cozy relationship with the biggest scumbag financial institution in Europe, Deucshe Bank.

NO evidence? I think not.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

Because it is impossible to hack an American presidential election. It isn't a national election it is 50 state elections. There was no evidence that any election system(other than Illinois) had any successful hacking intrusion. Don't listen to me though. President Obama lays it out pretty well. 

 

As for the Russians influence if you read what the DOJ said the Russians were trying to sow mistrust in the system. They worked both sides of the equation to try and get people to start questioning our system. Seems they've had a great return on their small investment. The Russians went from no threat in the 2012 election( the 80's called and want their foreign policy back) to a return to the Cold War in 2016 according to the dems. Amazing what happens when you lose and need someone to blame. 

My question is why didn't the Obama admin do more to stop the Russians? They knew what was going on and did nothing. 

The extent of the Obama administration’s failure on Russia is breathtaking. TheMueller report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, but substantial confirmation that the previous commander-in-chief failed to stop a hostile foreign power from invading our democracy. Why? Obama’s top priority was getting Russia into the Iranian nuclear deal, which explains why his administration turned a blind eye toward Russian electoral interference. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/18/mueller-report-collusion-trump-russian-election-interference-democrats-takeaways-column/3505946002/

But Obama...? My friend, I'm not asking you as a commie leftist demmykrat.

My question is not whether the Russians hacked anything, or physically changed votes.  Trump was told by everyone in the IC that Russia was making all kinds of attempts to influence our election, and Trump refused to acknowledge that for a long time. We all remember him taking Putin's word over that of the US intelligence community. So...why? Why do you think he did that? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, toonkee said:

But Obama...? My friend, I'm not asking you as a commie leftist demmykrat.

My question is not whether the Russians hacked anything, or physically changed votes.  Trump was told by everyone in the IC that Russia was making all kinds of attempts to influence our election, and Trump refused to acknowledge that for a long time. We all remember him taking Putin's word over that of the US intelligence community. So...why? Why do you think he did that? 

 

As already noted above, to acknowledge any interference would taint his victory. Besides, does any rational person still think the Russians had any influence on voters in the polling booth? There were probably 100 reasons why Hilliary lost and none of them had anything to do with the Russians. Hell she couldn’t even win with her side spying on the Trump campaign for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toonkee said:

But Obama...? My friend, I'm not asking you as a commie leftist demmykrat.

My question is not whether the Russians hacked anything, or physically changed votes.  Trump was told by everyone in the IC that Russia was making all kinds of attempts to influence our election, and Trump refused to acknowledge that for a long time. We all remember him taking Putin's word over that of the US intelligence community. So...why? Why do you think he did that? 

 

The Russians do the same thing we do in their elections. It's business as usual. To acknowledge that is to give them a victory. What is said in public differs greatly from policy. If you look at Trump's policy toward Russia he's been anything but helpful to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You think so?

I'm sure he's absolutely laughing at the Repubs.

Putin is of little consequence. The election games he plays have little value. Even the Dem leaders know that. It’s pretty simple. They are just using Russia as an excuse to try get to Trump. And they are failing. The dim witted Dem base are being played and they aren’t smart enough to figure it out. They let their hatred for Trump cloud their judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You think so?

I'm sure he's absolutely laughing at the Repubs.

He spent $5 on facebook ads and got the democrats to destroy the political system because the Russians were not on their side any more.

Putin is +++++ing laughing his ass off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Putin's game is to simply reap havoc with our political system.   By playing on TDS....he played the Dems big time..

I honestly have no idea what you guys mean. Yeah most of us non-Repubs detest Trump. However, how do you guys figure that has something to do with Putin?

What I do know is this. Trump is one of the handful of worst presidents in history and if the economy should go sideways, there's an excellent chance he will go down in the history books as the absolute worst. Even you guys have to admit Trump is a total embarrassment to our great country. And last I looked, although the Dems can be blamed for nominating horrible Hillary, it wasn't the Dems who nominated Trump nor was it the Dems who elected him.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I honestly have no idea what you guys mean. Yeah most of us non-Repubs detest Trump. However, how do you guys figure that has something to do with Putin?

What I do know is this. Trump is one of the handful of worst presidents in history and if the economy should go sideways, there's an excellent chance he will go down in the history books as the absolute worst. Even you guys have to admit Trump is a total embarrassment to our great country. And last I looked, although the Dems can be blamed for nominating horrible Hillary, it wasn't the Dems who nominated Trump nor was it the Dems who elected him.

What I know is that this circus sideshow the Dems are performing under their tent is the worst I've ever seen in history. The Dems behavior in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing put their moral character down in the dregs right with Trump. Yelling we're going to impeach the MFer as part of a election night celebration? Few Dems now hold very little moral high-ground ground on Trump.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

What I know is that this circus sideshow the Dems are performing under their tent is the worst I've ever seen in history. The Dems behavior in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing put their moral character down in the dregs right with Trump. Yelling we're going to impeach the MFer as part of a election night celebration? Few Dems now hold very little moral high-ground ground on Trump.

This forum's idiot non-savant will accuse me of racism for saying this but insofar as you think those two new Muslim Dems in the House are disgusting, I'm right with you. As to the moral high ground as the result of the Kavanaugh hearings, before I go agreeing with you on that, I'm going to wait and see if that guy actually exudes on the court some semblance of the objectivity he assured the country he would follow. You know, as opposed to acting under the shield of that ridiculous originalist philosophy to cast a far-right vote on every critical constitutional issue coming before him as did Scalia and as has Thomas and for the most part Alito and Gorsuch.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

This forum's idiot non-savant will accuse me of racism for saying this but insofar as you think those two new Muslim Dems in the House are disgusting, I'm right with you. As to the moral high ground as the result of the Kavanaugh hearings, before I go agreeing with you on that, I'm going to wait and see if that guy actually exudes on the court some semblance of the objectivity he assured the country he would follow. You know, as opposed to acting under the shield of that ridiculous originalist philosophy to cast a far-right vote on every critical constitutional issue coming before him as did Scalia and as has Thomas and for the most part Alito and Gorsuch.

I need to clarify a couple of things. My comment about the election night comments has absolutely nothing to do with race, ethnicity or cultural background of the person saying it. Secondly, the behavior of the Dems at the scotus confirmation hearing stands totally on its own, irregardless of the future performance of Kavanaugh.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

The Russians do the same thing we do in their elections. It's business as usual. To acknowledge that is to give them a victory. What is said in public differs greatly from policy. If you look at Trump's policy toward Russia he's been anything but helpful to them. 

right...

first of all, their "elections"? The ones where Putin gets 75%. Would he have got 80% without our cy-ops campaign, lol?

And how is that giving Russia a victory?  Because it acknowledges they were successful at f-ing with us? And what kind of victory does Russia get when Trump says he believe's Putin's strong denial over the intelligence community's work?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

As already noted above, to acknowledge any interference would taint his victory. Besides, does any rational person still think the Russians had any influence on voters in the polling booth? There were probably 100 reasons why Hilliary lost and none of them had anything to do with the Russians. Hell she couldn’t even win with her side spying on the Trump campaign for her.

Do you think political campaigns work?  Do you think they spend $1B on getting you all riled up and motivated because it doesn't work?  LOL. Do you think advertising has any effect?

Why do you guys think you're above being influenced?  

You're delusional if you think voters all come to their decision solely through cold hard facts, adhering to principles and measured thinking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...