Mueller shows some of his hand

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 07:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you don't think Obama knew that Hills was using her personal email for government business before we did?

I get folks trying to make it "nuanced" but the bottom line is no party has a monopoly on this type of business.

FWIW, do you think the current Trump issue is on par with Contra or are they different? 

I bet that Obama knew at least 24 hours before the rest of us did.

Could we say, perhaps, that no party has a monopoly on treason and burglary;
both sides do it, but so far only one party has been caught at it--again and again.

Certainly the Trump collusion investigation is "on par," but it is not over yet. It could be worse.

In Reagan's defense, there is a milder version of events which humanizes him. He wanted to free hostages. And he did.
When caught, he admitted that he did not want to believe he had traded arms for hostages, but the facts said otherwise. 

As far as funneling the profits to the Contras, that is still pretty murky, at least for me. It is possible that cowboys in the NSC did that on their own initiative.  And Reagan did not know. Have you ever listened to Ollie North?  Laws made by liberals aren't going to stop that guy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:01 PM)Dill Wrote: I bet that Obama knew at least 24 hours before the rest of us did.

Could we say, perhaps, that no party has a monopoly on treason and burglary;
both sides do it, but so far only one party has been caught at it--again and again.

Certainly the Trump collusion investigation is "on par," but it is not over yet. It could be worse.

In Reagan's defense, there is a milder version of events which humanizes him. He wanted to free hostages. And he did.
When caught, he admitted that he did not want to believe he had traded arms for hostages, but the facts said otherwise. 

As far as funneling the profits to the Contras, that is still pretty murky, at least for me. It is possible that cowboys in the NSC did that on their own initiative.  And Reagan did not know. Have you ever listened to Ollie North?  Laws made by liberals aren't going to stop that guy.

So in your opinion Obama lied about his knowledge. 

Sure we can say both parties did it. Andrew Jackson was a Democrat.

Can we say no party has a monopoly on affairs with interns and lying about it? 

[GMDino]

Holy Jebus on a pogostick.

If Trump is found to have done anything this board will be filled with people saying he can't be/shouldn't be punished because a democrat wasn't once for something.

This is about Trump.

TRUMP

The guy you guys voted for and support ENDLESSLY.

Try to defend him and his actions and words without saying "someone else did it too"...I don't think you can.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 08:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Holy Jebus on a pogostick.

If Trump is found to have done anything this board will be filled with people saying he can't be/shouldn't be punished because a democrat wasn't once for something.

This is about Trump.

TRUMP

The guy you guys voted for and support ENDLESSLY.

Try to defend him and his actions and words without saying "someone else did it too"...I don't think you can.  

Hell Fred was the one that introduced another POTUS, so I assume this rant is directed at him and I applaud it. 

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 08:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So in your opinion Obama lied about his knowledge. 

Sure we can say both parties did it. Andrew Jackson was a Democrat.

Can we say no party has a monopoly on affairs with interns and lying about it? 

Which foreign power did Jackson collude with? Cherokees? The Spanish?

Why would we care about interns? Can we agree boning interns does not rise to the level of treason?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 02:58 AM)Dill Wrote: Which foreign power did Jackson collude with? Cherokees? The Spanish?

Why would we care about interns? Can we agree boning interns does not rise to the level of treason?

Neither would this.

[GMDino]

(11-27-2018, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell Fred was the one that introduced another POTUS, so I assume this rant is directed at him and I applaud it. 

Hell, how about its directed at everyone?  You were the kid in grade school who would see someone sneaking a piece of candy and then grab a handful and when he got caught turn the other kid in because "he did it first" because that meant YOU didn't do anything wrong.

Fred brought up Regan because his denying any knowledge of something.  You brought up Obama because he said the same thing.


Yet when the two situations were shown to be very different in how the POTUS might not have known about it you continue because "democrats".

I'm sure your very unbiased and middle of the road sense of fairness is making you do it...

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 08:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Neither would this.

"This" isn't over yet.

We know everything Clinton did to get impeached:  He lied under oath about something unrelated to the job he swore to. 

We do not know everything Trump may have done.  And, so far, he has refused to go under oath.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: "This" isn't over yet.

We know everything Clinton did to get impeached:  He lied under oath about something unrelated to the job he swore to. 

We do not know everything Trump may have done.  And, so far, he has refused to go under oath.

Nothing he could have done with Russia would be treason.  It can be a lot of other things, but not treason.  

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 09:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nothing he could have done with Russia would be treason.  It can be a lot of other things, but not treason.  

But we don't know what he did at all...not just with the Russians.

People saying "No way it can be treason" are as bad as the people who say "it will absolutely be treason".

We simply don't know until it's over.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 09:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: But we don't know what he did at all...not just with the Russians.

People saying "No way it can be treason" are as bad as the people who say "it will absolutely be treason".

We simply don't know until it's over.

Well I guess technically he could have committed treason with NK somehow since we are technically still at war with them.  I guess you could include ISIS.  

[Benton]

(11-28-2018, 09:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nothing he could have done with Russia would be treason.  It can be a lot of other things, but not treason.  

It doesn't have to be treasonous to be impeachable. Hell, Clinton just lied about getting a blowjob.

This may bring up some questions on if the president can c ommit treason, but even that's hard to say since we don't know what's in the report.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 11:24 AM)Benton Wrote: It doesn't have to be treasonous to be impeachable. Hell, Clinton just lied about getting a blowjob.

This may bring up some questions on if the president can c ommit treason, but even that's hard to say since we don't know what's in the report.

I said it could be a whole lot of things.  I was just replying to Dill's post.

[BmorePat87]

(11-27-2018, 04:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wish there was a word or phrase for people who bring up Obama in every discussion of the investigations into Trump...

Pathetic?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-28-2018, 11:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pathetic?

Whatever phrase was used for people who said Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush for eight years could probably be applied here.

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 11:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pathetic?

Maybe a syndrome of some sort....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-27-2018, 08:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Holy Jebus on a pogostick.

If Trump is found to have done anything this board will be filled with people saying he can't be/shouldn't be punished because a democrat wasn't once for something.

This is about Trump.

TRUMP

The guy you guys voted for and support ENDLESSLY.

Try to defend him and his actions and words without saying "someone else did it too"...I don't think you can.  

Just a few things, as you and your buddies use this tactic frequently.  Many, if not most, of the people who respond to your bedwetting threads didn't vote for Trump.  You, and your ilk, also tend to conflate us pointing out that, in many instances, you're acting hysterical as a defense of Trump.  It is not.  Pointing out your shameless hypocrisy is also not defending Trump, it is holding your hypocrisy to the light.

I appreciate you're allowing me the time to point these things out.  

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just a few things, as you and your buddies use this tactic frequently.  Many, if not most, of the people who respond to your bedwetting threads didn't vote for Trump.  You, and your ilk, also tend to conflate us pointing out that, in many instances, you're acting hysterical as a defense of Trump.  It is not.  Pointing out your shameless hypocrisy is also not defending Trump, it is holding your hypocrisy to the light.

I appreciate you're allowing me the time to point these things out.  

No problem...free country and all that!

However it's the same as, how you say "you and your ilk" that defend Trump every time, all the time.  Occasionally (and very rarely) after pages of defense there will be a post about "well of course I *wish* he wouldn't do/say that" but for the most part this board seems simply over populated with people who claim a) the didn't vote for Trump b) they don't like what he says or does and c) defend him every time there is any post ("bedwetting" or not) about the latest thing he said and did.

Heck some claim to be TOTALLY middle of the road (maybe they "lean" conservative).

And some say they are quite liberal!  And would be MORE liberal if it wasn't for all the liberals being so liberal! 

However if someone is NOT someone who actually voted for Trump, and DOESN'T support him I guess I wasn't talking about them. Or their "ilk".

Glad I could clear that up for ya!

[jj22]

Someone found their Hillary card. GO figure.

Can't believe that is still a thing as the Trump and his family continues to use personal cell phones, against the advice of American Intel.

But it clearly is.

Funny how Trump supporters have yet to attack him for that.....

Too ashamed to admit to voting for Trump, but we all know better. How can folks vote for someone and be too ashamed to admit it (probably because they know they've voted for someone so anti-American, someone who colluded with a foreign enemy to attack America), and when he goes down, they don't want to be associated with that vote.

We are on to yall. And we won't forget regardless of yall leaving yourself an out when it hits the fan.

[BmorePat87]

(11-28-2018, 11:33 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Whatever phrase was used for people who said Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush for eight years could probably be applied here.