(06-09-2017, 12:01 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, it's that you fail to acknowledge evidence where it was with respect to Clinton and Obama, and seeing evidence where we've seen none with respect to Trump. Benghazi, Fast 'n Furious, IRS, AP, emails - if you weren't being partisan, you readily recognize the investigations and evidence that came from those.
And the results of those were.....?
(06-09-2017, 12:01 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And, yes, despite calls for special prosecutors in more than one of those scandals it was never allowed.
Please remember that your boy Trump said he WOULD appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton email "scandal"...and didn't. Who didn't "allow" him?
(06-09-2017, 12:01 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But don't worry, given time I'm sure Trump will have some real scandals of his own that produce tangible evidence where you can then be someone reacting to evidence rather than partisan hopes.
I have no doubt Trump will continue to bumble around until the next time he flirts with breaking the law or at least looking unethical. I don't WANT that to happen...but given his history (not just as POTUS) it will happen sooner rather than later.
"Partisan"...
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-09-2017, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm simply saying that so far I've seen multiple posts in this thread about how Obama or the Clinton's were worse and had all these "scandals" than were never investigated...and no specifics. Or any acknowledgement of all the investigations into the Clintons or the all the investigations and hearings done by the GOP controlled congress for six years.
But yep, I'm the partisan one.
One might also note how many of those GOP "investigations" ended either in a "nothing there" verdict or in proper punishment of the guilty. One purpose was to manufacture "outrage," and the outrage remains, spun into a sense that Clintons and Obama "got away" with whatever they were accused of. They continue to remain guilty as charged, fueling distrust in government still controlled by "liberals" even when Republicans have House, Senate and Presidency. The faux scandals remain a "reality" for the Fox demographic.
Interesting about the present moment is the effort of RWM to cast Trump's difficulties as creations of the media and the the Obama deep state, not Trump's own very public public actions. The same machine which whipped up faux Clinton/Obama scandals has now inverted to neutralize the outrage Trump genuinely invokes from 60% of the public.
(06-09-2017, 12:01 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, it's that you fail to acknowledge evidence where it was with respect to Clinton and Obama, and seeing evidence where we've seen none with respect to Trump. Benghazi, Fast 'n Furious, IRS, AP, emails - if you weren't being partisan, you readily recognize the investigations and evidence that came from those.
And, yes, despite calls for special prosecutors in more than one of those scandals it was never allowed.
But don't worry, given time I'm sure Trump will have some real scandals of his own that produce tangible evidence where you can then be someone reacting to evidence rather than partisan hopes.
Calls for a special prosecutor don't always mean they are justified, or that mean Democrats just won't let nice Republicans do what's right.
Postpone your charges of partisanship until after providing some evidence and analysis yourself.
Start with Benghazi. After seven separate investigations, what "evidence" of what?
State clearly what evidence people are seeing, with regard to Trump, that is not there.
(06-09-2017, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be one for constitutional scholars, but on the surface I believe they could. Pardons may be the purview of the POTUS, but pardons and grants of clemency are vetted by the DoJ and other administration officials for a reason. Obviously the POTUS could still decide to do so, but if it is something big that the person took part in and the IC and Congress are against it, then there could be an enormous backlash politically, and possible obstruction charges brought depending on timing.
There is no constitutional power that is limitless.
Let me ask this. At what point would you consider the Director of the FBI to be obstructing justice? It's hard to imagine where a person can stop an investigation, but his boss cannot. We keep hearing of this distance between the executive branch and the justice department, but it's not a legal one. It's one of practice over the last 40 years.
And all of this still revolves around who will accept his statement about Flynn to be an order. It sure doesn't sound like an order. One could say it was implied, but I don't think that would hold up in a real court.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-09-2017, 01:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Start with Benghazi. After seven separate investigations, what "evidence" of what?
State clearly what evidence people are seeing, with regard to Trump, that is not there.
There damn sure should have been a special prosecutor with the IRS.
Memos of manipulated/false talking points, which Susan Rice ran around the circuit. Talking points that were, at best, wrong and arguably lies. They threw some poor schlub in jail, too. Gee, nothing about an abuse of power there - patsy and all...textbook.
You're turn - what evidence do you believe there is against Trump? I'm not going to guess at what actual, factual evidence you think there has been, because Comey himself basically called the reporting/leaks reckless and irresponsible.
(06-09-2017, 12:31 PM)Dill Wrote: The faux scandals remain a "reality" for the Fox demographic.
Do you honestly believe the IRS and Clinton's emails were "faux" scandals? How many people needed immunity or took the fifth in those deals? How many emails were "lost" or "disappeared" in both cases?
And the DNC thing with Bernie didn't really happen, right?, because we only learned of it thru illegal hacking so it's not admissible.
(06-09-2017, 12:31 PM)Dill Wrote: One might also note how many of those GOP "investigations" ended either in a "nothing there" verdict or in proper punishment of the guilty. One purpose was to manufacture "outrage," and the outrage remains, spun into a sense that Clintons and Obama "got away" with whatever they were accused of. They continue to remain guilty as charged, fueling distrust in government still controlled by "liberals" even when Republicans have House, Senate and Presidency. The faux scandals remain a "reality" for the Fox demographic.
Interesting about the present moment is the effort of RWM to cast Trump's difficulties as creations of the media and the the Obama deep state, not Trump's own very public public actions. The same machine which whipped up faux Clinton/Obama scandals has now inverted to neutralize the outrage Trump genuinely invokes from 60% of the public.
You just know Crooked Hillary is crooked because she got away with everything.
(06-09-2017, 02:06 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There damn sure should have been a special prosecutor with the IRS.
Memos of manipulated/false talking points, which Susan Rice ran around the circuit. Talking points that were, at best, wrong and arguably lies. They threw some poor schlub in jail, too. Gee, nothing about an abuse of power there - patsy and all...textbook.
You're turn - what evidence do you believe there is against Trump? I'm not going to guess at what actual, factual evidence you think there has been, because Comey himself basically called the reporting/leaks reckless and irresponsible.
I bet Dill feels humiliated by all those Benghazi facts you so eloquently argued.
(06-09-2017, 01:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Let me ask this. At what point would you consider the Director of the FBI to be obstructing justice? It's hard to imagine where a person can stop an investigation, but his boss cannot. We keep hearing of this distance between the executive branch and the justice department, but it's not a legal one. It's one of practice over the last 40 years.
And all of this still revolves around who will accept his statement about Flynn to be an order. It sure doesn't sound like an order. One could say it was implied, but I don't think that would hold up in a real court.
Closing an investigation before the investigation reaches its natural conclusion either through lack of evidence, verdict in a case, etc. To me, if an investigation is opened then stopping it before then is obstructing that investigation. That and the obvious things of misinformation and all that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Of course, Trump claims Comey is lying. Won't deny there are tapes. Probably has the tapes locked in a vault along with Obama's birth certificate? I'm just asking.
(06-09-2017, 04:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Closing an investigation before the investigation reaches its natural conclusion either through lack of evidence, verdict in a case, etc. To me, if an investigation is opened then stopping it before then is obstructing that investigation. That and the obvious things of misinformation and all that.
See I think the director probably routinely ends investigations for various reasons. He may decide resources are better used somewhere else for example.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-09-2017, 06:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: See I think the director probably routinely ends investigations for various reasons. He may decide resources are better used somewhere else for example.
I would wager that happens, but it is based on " this investigation is not going to go much further, so the resources would be better served over here." This falls into what I describe as the natural course. If an investigation were halted that was still moving forward merely for budget reasons or any other, that would not be acceptable.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Aww..lefties in Brooklyn not too happy listening to Comey testify that Trump was not being investigated for any kind of collusion with the Russians...
....and that Trump did not in any way try to impede or slow down the Flynn investigation.
...and the sentiment that Trump expressed to Comey was "by all means continue this Russian investigation", that he (Trump) wasn't involved, and that it would be nice to know if any of the people around him were.
and that Comey leaked his own memo because he was afraid of Trump. Fine way for an FBI to behave.
This charade is a new low for democrats. Embarrassing. Putin is laughing at you.
Lefties, and Republicans need a lesson on the Constitutional powers of the president.
President Trump could have ordered the FBI to stop its investigation on Flynn, but he didn't.
The president also could have pardoned Flynn, which he should have.
(06-09-2017, 09:04 PM)Vlad Wrote: Democrats are out of their freakin minds.
Aww..lefties in Brooklyn not too happy listening to Comey testify that Trump was not being investigated for any kind of collusion with the Russians...
....and that Trump did not in any way try to impede or slow down the Flynn investigation.
...and the sentiment that Trump expressed to Comey was "by all means continue this Russian investigation", that he (Trump) wasn't involved, and that it would be nice to know if any of the people around him were.
and that Comey leaked his own memo because he was afraid of Trump. Fine way for an FBI to behave.
This charade is a new low for democrats. Embarrassing. Putin is laughing at you.
Hmm, reminds me of the reaction people had when OJ was found not guilty.
(06-09-2017, 11:49 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Guess the Dems need daddy Mueller to issue a final ruling.
Because of the nature of investigations like these, I believe it is possible that the investigation may not be completed before Trump's first term has ended. Special prosecutors are notoriously thorough in investigations.
Also, the investigation is about Russian interference in the election, not about collusion between Trump admin people and the Russians. Stuff that is uncovered regarding that is secondary to the investigation.
It is possible that some people could be brought up on charges if the investigation uncovers any illegal activity, even if it is secondary to the main goal of the investigation. Those charges could be filed and the trials run and completed before the full investigation has ended. As I recall, that was what happened during the Watergate investigation. Charges and trials for the guys actually caught in the break-in went forward and were completed , even while the special prosecutors investigation was still going on.
(06-09-2017, 09:04 PM)Vlad Wrote: Democrats are out of their freakin minds.
Aww..lefties in Brooklyn not too happy listening to Comey testify that Trump was not being investigated for any kind of collusion with the Russians...
....and that Trump did not in any way try to impede or slow down the Flynn investigation.
...and the sentiment that Trump expressed to Comey was "by all means continue this Russian investigation", that he (Trump) wasn't involved, and that it would be nice to know if any of the people around him were.
and that Comey leaked his own memo because he was afraid of Trump. Fine way for an FBI to behave.
This charade is a new low for democrats. Embarrassing. Putin is laughing at you.
How do you know that these aren't Trump Repubs kool-aid drinkers disappointed that the person they voted for turned out to be such a moron?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 650-060917-Brooklyn-bar-COMEY.jpg]](https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/650-060917-Brooklyn-bar-COMEY.jpg)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
