leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 47 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: No, we don't agree there and I have been meaning to mention this. You have a bad habit of telling me what we agree to, when we don't. Please use more care in these types of assumptions, if you would. There surely is a downside of the President or AG using their power to direct our law enforcement agencies to investigate and essentially attempt to punish any of their personal or political enemies. Stop being ridiculous please. Some around here are foolish enough to accept that silly argument. I am pretty sure you are not that foolish and I am assuredly not. I don't think you're foolish, but this is just the way I work things out. Your style, if I may be so bold, is to ask perpetually open-ended questions, with more questions to follow and an "we just need to know more". That line of questioning can be taken to infinity, is the framework of the democrats assault on the Trump presidency, and it's political muckraking 101. Even now, you're stubborn in your willingness to wither on the vine of Trump/Russia in spite of the numerous problems with the narrative. I absolutely agree that there is a "downside to the President or AG using their power to direct our law enforcement agencies to investigate and essentially attempt to punish any of their personal or political enemies". I just don't know why you support it when used against Trump, and why you feel it's not worth investigating a guy canned for lying. 1
snafu Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I just don't know why you support it when used against Trump, and why you feel it's not worth investigating a guy canned for lying. Lack of candor. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Just now, snafu said: Lack of candor. This made me laugh actually, though I don't think that is the case with Bob. I try and take everyone at their word, at least, those I haven't written off as silly hearts or worse. I don't understand him on this one, it just seems incredibly obvious that he's applying two different standards to two political investigations. I could understand him accusing me of doing the same thing, but while the Russia narrative seemed really far-fetched to me, I did listen early on to what was being said with a reasonable, but very skeptical open-mind. The simple analysis-- I could never square "TRUMP = RUSSIAN" with a gang of prosecutors with unlimited power allowing him to destroy the country while they trudged along like the keystone cops. I'd have thought they would bust him out of office in 15 minutes if they had the goods on him, as was alleged by a guy like John Brennan. We all have our blind spots, I suppose.
njbuff Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 46 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: No amount of other wrongdoing by anyone else changes the facts of the Trump tower meeting, right? Trump may win the next election. This PPP board alone is proof plenty that his defenders will believe any and all of his lies so he will get lots of votes. Tell me please, the person's name that could accuse Trump of wrongdoing or even seriously criticize Trump, and remain a credible, respected person in your eyes. Name? Remember a few days ago when you admitted that you didn't really know too much about this politics stuff? Yeah, me too. I have no idea. There has been everybody and their brother investigating Trump and yet they still have to make up shyt about him in the end. And I don't know politics that well at all. All I know is that what I have learned the last three years is that the left is full of shyt and you people continue to cry because Hillary isn't president. Sad. Like I said, you have something REAL on Trump, by all means let me know. Stop making up shyt just because you hate the guy.
snafu Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 42 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: This made me laugh actually, though I don't think that is the case with Bob. I try and take everyone at their word, at least, those I haven't written off as silly hearts or worse. I don't understand him on this one, it just seems incredibly obvious that he's applying two different standards to two political investigations. I could understand him accusing me of doing the same thing, but while the Russia narrative seemed really far-fetched to me, I did listen early on to what was being said with a reasonable, but very skeptical open-mind. The simple analysis-- I could never square "TRUMP = RUSSIAN" with a gang of prosecutors with unlimited power allowing him to destroy the country while they trudged along like the keystone cops. I'd have thought they would bust him out of office in 15 minutes if they had the goods on him, as was alleged by a guy like John Brennan. We all have our blind spots, I suppose. I have blind spots. I just don’t see them. I do believe that Trump gets things wrong and that he’s often his own worst enemy in very obvious ways. Nothing sets my hair on fire like I see with the TDS set. I do believe that at the point when Trump/Russia got started there was actually something to investigate. That investigation obviously (to me) quickly unraveled. That didn’t stop the investigators. I’m not willing to let people crap on the current administration without having them acknowledge how the prior administration and it’s leftover players bent and broke rules to effectuate an “insurance policy”. I’m not willing to let people give the prior administration’s bad actors a pass. I’m not willing to hear that one group of people shrug off bad acts by bad actors as “conspiracy”. I’m not willing to call for the President’s ouster at every hair trigger turn of events. It paralyzes the normal functioning of government. Unfortunately, there are too many people who want to see him gone so badly that they’ll lower any standard applicable to the acceptability of this particular President’s conduct. These people are willfully blind to the future and what lower standards will mean. Maybe they believe that things will go back to “normal” after this particular President is gone. They’re probably right that any future President won’t behave like the most powerful juvenile on the planet. What they might not see, however, is how focusing on bad behavior is not as important as making sure the President is acting within the confines of his power. Too many times these things get conflated. It doesn’t work now, and it won’t work in the future. 1 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Barr taps network of prosecutors to review Russia-Ukraine cases By Brooke Singman | Fox News FEB. 17, 2020 Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped a growing number of federal prosecutors across the country to review high-profile Russia probes involving Trump associates and consider emerging allegations tied to Ukraine, in a bold but risky move that comes as he faces mounting criticism and even resignation calls from congressional Democrats who allege he's protecting the president. On Friday, Fox News reported that Barr appointed Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Justice Department officials told Fox News Jensen would be working hand-in-hand with Brandon Van Grack, the lead prosecutor in the case. It marked the latest example of Barr bringing on a federal prosecutor to examine a politically charged case. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-taps-network-of-prosecutors-to-review-russia-ukraine-investigations 1 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: Barr taps network of prosecutors to review Russia-Ukraine cases By Brooke Singman | Fox News FEB. 17, 2020 Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped a growing number of federal prosecutors across the country to review high-profile Russia probes involving Trump associates and consider emerging allegations tied to Ukraine, in a bold but risky move that comes as he faces mounting criticism and even resignation calls from congressional Democrats who allege he's protecting the president. On Friday, Fox News reported that Barr appointed Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Justice Department officials told Fox News Jensen would be working hand-in-hand with Brandon Van Grack, the lead prosecutor in the case. It marked the latest example of Barr bringing on a federal prosecutor to examine a politically charged case. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-taps-network-of-prosecutors-to-review-russia-ukraine-investigations ...don't despair!...the highly acclaimed resignation petition is in circulation.....he's getting "too close for DOJ comfort"....he'll be labeled a partisan hack and a "Trump lackey" no doubt...so let's look at "Bull" Durham......assigned significant high profile cases as a US Attorney under the honorable and credible Eric Holder.....so now is the table set to cast HIM as a partisan, political hack as a matter of "convenience"?....naw, not a chance............ 1 1
LSHMEAB Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 23 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Even easier than that, if there was collusion/conspiracy, why wasn't a single person charged or indicted with it? It was pretty obvious Mueller wasn't going to find some grand conspiracy on Trump's part from the early goings in that investigation. The media had already spent a year "investigating" and they came up with a single meeting with a lawyer. A single meeting of little or no consequence. Logic dictates that the media would have discovered SOMETHING "better" along the way than an individual meeting with some lawyer who appeared to have little or no connection to the Kremlin. It ALWAYS smacked of weaksauce. "But wait for Mueller I was told" by my liberal pals. MMkay. I waited. And when you launch that kind of investigation and make those kind of implicit promises, it will almost certainly backfire. They handed Trump a pretty big political score there. On this particular issue, zero disagreement. 2
Hedge Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) Sorry Leftists. So much fake news: ----------------------------------------------- Edited February 19, 2020 by Hedge 1 1 1
4merper4mer Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 6 hours ago, Hedge said: Sorry Leftists. So much fake news: ----------------------------------------------- Imagine the outrage by Waters if Barr or Durham actually did anything. Don't get me wrong, obviously they won't, but imagine if they did. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Imagine the outrage by Waters if Barr or Durham actually did anything. Don't get me wrong, obviously they won't, but imagine if they did. See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope. Barr/Durham are over-target, they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive. Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T. 3
4merper4mer Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope. Barr/Durham are over-target, they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive. Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T. Maybe Waters isn't clued into the obvious fact that Huber, Barr, Durham, Nunes, Horowitz and the parade of other blatherers aren't ever going to do anything but talk.
Warren Zevon Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 33 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Maybe Waters isn't clued into the obvious fact that Huber, Barr, Durham, Nunes, Horowitz and the parade of other blatherers aren't ever going to do anything but talk. Huber did something - he closed the Hillary case
Nanker Posted February 19, 2020 Author Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope. Barr/Durham are over-target, they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive. Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T. To understand what they fear, watch Seasons 6 and 7 of Homeland on Showtime. Edited February 19, 2020 by Nanker
Tiberius Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 If Trump loses, I wonder who the next Democratic Attorney General will be? Hillary?
B-Man Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Fake,fake,fake news DOJ pushes back at reports Barr considered quitting over Trump tweets by Morgan Phillips * Original Article .
3rdnlng Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Hillary Clinton's law license was suspended in 2002 and she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's legal team back in Watergate days. The reason for her firing? She fabricated a court ruling in order to meet her narrative. This makes her very qualified for any democrat position but even more so for the chief law enforcement officer for the country. -) 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, B-Man said: Can confirm that sentiment from people at DOJ. 4
Recommended Posts