Posts: 2,270
Threads: 96
Joined: Dec 2015
Mood: None
How about that, we're talking about a real scandal, one that actually merits an investigation.
Recall that little meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch an aircraft parked on a tarmac?
Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Congress should investigate whether former Attorney General Loretta Lynch pressured former FBI Director James Comey to cover for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Comey testified last Thursday that he felt "queasy" after Lynch asked him to characterize his probe into Clinton's emails as a "matter," rather than an investigation.
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/337323-dem-we-need-investigate-whether-lynch-gave-cover-to-clinton
Surprised no one is talking about this, it was plastered all over the evening news.
Posts: 2,136
Threads: 291
Reputation:
7221
Joined: May 2015
Location: Indiana
Mood: None
The reason no one is talking about it is because if it's true, if it's found out to be true, then Comey gains some credibility. If its found out to be false then he loses credibility and everything he said or says is tainted.
As for me, I just want the truth about everything. I don't care if Trump goes down faster than a fat ***** on nickel night, if he's dirty, destroy him. If anyone is dirty, destroy them and let's get busy doing the people's job.
It's been nothing but garbage in/garbage out since Bush senior. It's time to do what's best for the country and NO, that's not Bernie Sanders or the like either. I'm thinking more along the lines of Biden or Mitch Daniels.
Posts: 3,838
Threads: 20
Reputation:
23177
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood: None
Maybe everyone finally just wants Hilldawg to go the F away. And everyone knows they had that special meeting to discuss grandchildren.
Posts: 2,270
Threads: 96
Joined: Dec 2015
Mood: None
Members of a congressional committee at a public hearing Wednesday blasted former President Barack Obama and his attorney general for allegedly covering up an investigation into the death of a Border Patrol agent killed as a result of a botched government gun-running project known as Operation Fast and Furious.
Holder’s Justice Department tried to hide the facts from the loved ones of slain Border Patrol Brian Terry – seeing his family as more of a “nuisance” than one deserving straight answers .
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, testified Wednesday in front of the committee, accusing DOJ and ATF officials of obstructing the investigation and working to silence ATF agents who informed the Senate of Fast and Furious.
Not mentioned in the report was Obamas attempt by executive order to prevent Congress from obtaining records on Fast and furious. Obstruction anyone?
As with the Lynch investigation thread I posted earlier, I expect silence here as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/07/fast-and-furious-report-slams-holder-doj-for-deception-in-gun-running-scandal.html
Posts: 10,718
Threads: 63
Reputation:
57608
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
It's unfortunate his death is being politicized. If there was an issue, it should have been raised in the last seven years.
At some point, the right needs to start addressing problems. They need to stop wasting time on how much they don't like Democrats and start working on an actual fix to healthcare, find jobs for those Carrier workers that screwed over, etc. They keep asking for total control and when they get it, they don't do much besides give donors tax breaks.
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 10:13 AM)Benton Wrote: It's unfortunate his death is being politicized. If there was an issue, it should have been raised in the last seven years.
At some point, the right needs to start addressing problems. They need to stop wasting time on how much they don't like Democrats and start working on an actual fix to healthcare, find jobs for those Carrier workers that screwed over, etc. They keep asking for total control and when they get it, they don't do much besides give donors tax breaks.
I believe they addressed it years ago and were stonewalled.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 7,543
Threads: 271
Reputation:
30759
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Why waste time investigating the conman in the oval office whem we can spend 8 more years talking about fast and furious, benghazi, and emails.
Brilliant
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 03:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Why waste time investigating the conman in the oval office whem we can spend 8 more years talking about fast and furious, benghazi, and emails.
Brilliant
So they're not investigating Trump?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 10,185
Threads: 221
Reputation:
66303
Joined: May 2015
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 04:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So they're not investigating Trump?
According to Comey, the FBI isn't.
Or 'wasn't', anyway. 
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 04:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: According to Comey, the FBI isn't.
Or 'wasn't', anyway.
Oh yeah that's right. Must be because they are bogged down with all the Obama era investigations.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(06-13-2017, 11:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I believe they addressed it years ago and were stonewalled.
They weren't stonewalled. There were some documents that Obama exerted executive privilege on, but the majority of what Congress requested, they got. They weren't happy with the answers because they wanted to stick it to the top tier, but everything pointed to the top officials not knowing about it. Everyone points to executive privilege and exercising your 5th Amendment rights as automatically hiding something nefarious, but that is not always the case. Especially with executive privilege.
"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
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They weren't stonewalled. There were some documents that Obama exerted executive privilege on, but the majority of what Congress requested, they got. They weren't happy with the answers because they wanted to stick it to the top tier, but everything pointed to the top officials not knowing about it. Everyone points to executive privilege and exercising your 5th Amendment rights as automatically hiding something nefarious, but that is not always the case. Especially with executive privilege.
So you're guessing they didn't stonewall. What was Eric Holder held in contempt for?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(06-13-2017, 04:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So you're guessing they didn't stonewall.
Stonewalling would have meant Congress didn't get the majority of the documents they requested, they wouldn't have gotten the responses they did from DoJ, etc. There was a lot of cooperation between the branches on this, but they don't share everything with each other. That goes both directions. It always has, and it always will, especially with a split government. With the level of cooperation Congress received I would absolutely not characterize what happened as stonewalling. We know what happened because of the work of Congress and the DOJ OIG. Had there been stonewalling we would not know a quarter of what we know.
"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
Posts: 20,138
Threads: 160
Reputation:
54695
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 04:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Stonewalling would have meant Congress didn't get the majority of the documents they requested, they wouldn't have gotten the responses they did from DoJ, etc. There was a lot of cooperation between the branches on this, but they don't share everything with each other. That goes both directions. It always has, and it always will, especially with a split government. With the level of cooperation Congress received I would absolutely not characterize what happened as stonewalling. We know what happened because of the work of Congress and the DOJ OIG. Had there been stonewalling we would not know a quarter of what we know.
Well Nixon gave them most of the tapes. Executive privilege on a program you say you knew nothing about?
Edit:It's just very hard for me to believe that the Justice Dept in part funded it, and Justice Dept officials are the ones that decided it should be gunwalking rather than arrest at the moment of exchange, and Holder knew nothing of it.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(06-13-2017, 05:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well Nixon gave them most of the tapes. Executive privilege on a program you say you knew nothing about?
Executive privilege on pages of documents that were requested. Do we know the relevance of the documents? Congress or a prosecutor can seek to overturn executive privilege if the documents are deemed to be so pertinent to an investigation that their absence hinders it. If those documents being withheld damaged the investigation in such a way, why not go that route?
All I'm saying here is that there is an assignment of motive to the exertion of executive privilege that is a logical leap.
"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
Posts: 10,185
Threads: 221
Reputation:
66303
Joined: May 2015
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Mood: None
(06-13-2017, 04:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh yeah that's right. Must be because they are bogged down with all the Obama era investigations.
Or, they just have no reason to investigate him at this point and folks are either really hoping that will happen or really nervous that it might happen, depending upon their political leanings.
Interesting people would feel that way if you think about it, considering that he is not being investigated.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[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)
