The Constitutional Crisis is Here!

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)Griever Wrote: so they hate facts

Yes, yes that's it; they hate facts. That's why they may be calling for an investigation. They sure do love suspicion and innuendo. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps because there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady; unlike the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Folks view it as a sitting president using his powers in a biased manner to influence the results of a National election. 

If this is shown to have any merit I hope quite a few care about it and it is not because they are ignorant. 

Members of the campaign took meetings with foreign parties to discuss them helping the campaign and did not notify law enforcement when these parties reached out to them. That alone is shadiness on the part of the Trump campaign and is a known fact. I don't see how you can make the statement in bold with this being out there.

As for the influence in the campaign, how so? Had Obama sought to influence the election he would have ordered the DoJ/FBI to haul in the campaign members that they had heard contacted foreign parties and had them interviewed. That is the standard operating procedure when law enforcement finds out about potential illegal activity, after all. Instead, the DoJ/FBI used an informant to gather more information because they were cognizant of the effects bringing in high profile campaign officials would have that close to the election.

If anything, the use of the informant is evidence of Obama's intention to not influence the election in any way.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 09:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, yes that's it; they hate facts. That's why they may be calling for an investigation. They sure do love suspicion and innuendo. 

Seems that way.  The current group of Republicans would rather investigate the people doing the investigation based off Trump's tweets than allow it to continue unobstructed.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps because there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady; unlike the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Folks view it as a sitting president using his powers in a biased manner to influence the results of a National election. 

If this is shown to have any merit I hope quite a few care about it and it is not because they are ignorant. 

Well, "if". If it has merit, I'd be with you. But what if it is shown to be a load of BS, like the wiretapping, the memo and the FISA abuse, the "debunked" Steele dossier etc. - Then no one cares, like no one ever cared, just move on to the next topic and the next pro-Trump spin. FOX even brought a "Seth Rich was murdered" piece, and everyone just moved on.

As for the "there is nothing to indicate the campaign did something shady" part - I wonder how you could possibly know that. You don't have any insight there comparable to the FBI insight. Also, there are clear signs of the opposite. Page had a shady history. Papadopoulos acted shady, Manafort is super-shady, as is Flynn, the undeclared foreign agent. Kushner is extremely shady. That's not just born out of the blue, not just my invention, these things are quite supported by evidence. Page was even on the FBI radar long before Trump because of his dubious Russia connections. So there's that. 
That "folks view it" differently really doesn't mean much, except that what folks believe or are made to believe is not so relevant. That Obama was involved in any investigation is completely unproven to begin with. That the investigation was started for political purposes is completely unproven. That the election was influenced is completely unproven. In fact, no matter the spin, I don't think anyone could possibly claim that the FBI heleped Hillary in the election.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Members of the campaign took meetings with foreign parties to discuss them helping the campaign and did not notify law enforcement when these parties reached out to them. That alone is shadiness on the part of the Trump campaign and is a known fact. I don't see how you can make the statement in bold with this being out there.

As for the influence in the campaign, how so? Had Obama sought to influence the election he would have ordered the DoJ/FBI to haul in the campaign members that they had heard contacted foreign parties and had them interviewed. That is the standard operating procedure when law enforcement finds out about potential illegal activity, after all. Instead, the DoJ/FBI used an informant to gather more information because they were cognizant of the effects bringing in high profile campaign officials would have that close to the election.

If anything, the use of the informant is evidence of Obama's intention to not influence the election in any way.

Collusion investigation has been going on for over a year and still no collusion has been proven. 

As I said people care because it shows possible bias by a sitting President. The DNC was proven corrupt and Obama did nothing, so of course folks what to know if he used his powers in a biased manner and perhaps abused his power. 

IMO, there's nothing to it; however, I just wanted to give another explanation other than they are ignorant or hate facts.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Collusion investigation has been going on for over a year and still no collusion has been proven. 

As I said people care because it shows possible bias by a sitting President. The DNC was proven corrupt and Obama did nothing, so of course folks what to know if he used his powers in a biased manner and perhaps abused his power. 

IMO, there's nothing to it; however, I just wanted to give another explanation other than they are ignorant or hate facts.

I don't know how this will not come off as smartalec-like even though I don't mean it that way, but how do you know?  I mean we don't have ANY conclusions from the investigation.  

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Collusion investigation has been going on for over a year and still no collusion has been proven. 

That isn't an extraordinary lengthy timeframe though, is it. Considering how the "showing the proof" part is the last part of an investigation.

But let me ask you a question, if you please. Would you, in the here and now, be in favour of shutting down the Mueller investigation for good, by firing Mueller, Rosenstein, who ever needs firing to achieve that, and move on?

[Griever]

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Collusion investigation has been going on for over a year and still no collusion has been proven. 

As I said people care because it shows possible bias by a sitting President. The DNC was proven corrupt and Obama did nothing, so of course folks what to know if he used his powers in a biased manner and perhaps abused his power. 

IMO, there's nothing to it; however, I just wanted to give another explanation other than they are ignorant or hate facts.

how do you know? I dont think you are privvy to what is going on behind closed doors concerning the indictments

we had 4 years of benghazi, and 3 years of "but her emails". All republican led, with nothing to show for it

Mueller (who is a republican, appointed by a republican who was appointed by trump) has gotten a lot more done in a year than they ever did against hillary (which was an actual nothing burger)

screaming fake and deep state setup makes you look ridiculous and puts you on par with hillary in the 90s when she claimed monica was a republican plant

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know how this will not come off as smartalec-like even though I don't mean it that way, but how do you know?  I mean we don't have ANY conclusions from the investigation.  

Kind of hard to prove a negative. Do you have examples of any conclusions that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russia to undermine the election?

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 10:43 AM)Griever Wrote: screaming fake and deep state setup makes you look ridiculous and puts you on par with hillary in the 90s when she claimed monica was a republican plant

lol, she really did that?

...ah well, Hillary.

[Benton]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

Well, part of the issue with it’s one-sided was is it’s an opinion piece. Those are usually one-sided.

The criticism of fox is interjecting one-sided opinions into news reporting. If you have a show or page that’s entirely opinion, people know that it’s opinion. If you have a show or page that’s a mix and the talking head switches from a news story about taxes to asking “is the president even a us citizen? I don’t know, I don’t know” then you’re blurring the line.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 10:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Kind of hard to prove a negative. Do you have examples of any conclusions that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russia to undermine the election?

Isn't that convenient.  

....

However *I* don't have proof of anything. 

The investigation has shown that Jr. met with Russians who claimed to have dirt on Clinton and failed to notify the proper authorities.


That's one.

And we know that is true. Jr. released the emails after claiming to not remember or that that was not what it was about.

Does that prove collusion?  No idea if just that fact is enough.  Probably not.

But I can't say " there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady" as you seem to able to say.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 10:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: That isn't an extraordinary lengthy timeframe though, is it. Considering how the "showing the proof" part is the last part of an investigation.

But let me ask you a question, if you please. Would you, in the here and now, be in favour of shutting down the Mueller investigation for good, by firing Mueller, Rosenstein, who ever needs firing to achieve that, and move on?

I've always been an advocate of we don't always need to see what's behind the curtain, so I have no problem with the investigation, just issues with making it so public. Just as I do not think this possible investigation into Obama need not be public. Insert COL Jessup's speech to illustrate my POV.

I have spoken against the Hillary/Bengazhi investigation in the past because she was doing her job, yet some did not like the manner in which she did it. I had no issues with her colluding with the DNC to unfairly influence the election; as I'm sure it has happened in the past. It's just as a society we have grown into one that needs to know how the sausage is made. Just let the sausage makers make the sausages and you do what you do to contribute to society.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Collusion investigation has been going on for over a year and still no collusion has been proven. 

These investigations can take a long time. We won't know what they have found re: collusion for a long time.

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said people care because it shows possible bias by a sitting President. The DNC was proven corrupt and Obama did nothing, so of course folks what to know if he used his powers in a biased manner and perhaps abused his power. 

What could Obama do? The stuff the DNC pulled wasn't criminal, as far as I can tell. The government itself wouldn't have standing to bring a civil suit as they were not the damaged party. The responsibility to act on the corruption of the DNC would rest with the Sanders campaign as they would have the standing to bring a civil suit.

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO, there's nothing to it; however, I just wanted to give another explanation other than they are ignorant or hate facts.

Ignorant is just lacking knowledge of the situation and/or facts in the matter, and that is the main reason I see most of the uproar over this. You giving that explanation for people doesn't remove them from the ignorance pool.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 10:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've always been an advocate of we don't always need to see what's behind the curtain, so I have no problem with the investigation, just issues with making it so public. Just as I do not think this possible investigation into Obama need not be public. Insert COL Jessup's speech to illustrate my POV.

I have spoken against the Hillary/Bengazhi investigation in the past because she was doing her job, yet some did not like the manner in which she did it. I had no issues with her colluding with the DNC to unfairly influence the election; as I'm sure it has happened in the past. It's just as a society we have grown into one that needs to know how the sausage is made. Just let the sausage makers make the sausages and you do what you do to contribute to society.

OK, I see the point, I also disagree with the point. I think transparency is good. It can go too far for sure, but investigating a campaign with Pages, Flynns, Manaforts and Kushners in it, acting how they act, with Don jr. acting how he acts, with the Felix Saters and Eric Princes in it that have their suspicious meetings all arounf the world, with the small cherry on top of the Steele dossier not being debunked, I think that's understandable in principle. That powerhungry folks run the country is to be expected - but if crooks run the country, that I want to know. Sure that's an "if" as well, but a more profund "if" as all the "if Obama spied on Trump, wiretapped Trump, politicized an investigation" - if's that are used to demand the investigation has to end now.

Also, Mueller doesn't do the investigation in public. Far from it.
Lastly, I'm not sure what your answer to my question is now. Shut the investigation down, for it or against it?

[jj22]

(05-23-2018, 10:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've always been an advocate of we don't always need to see what's behind the curtain, so I have no problem with the investigation, just issues with making it so public. Just as I do not think this possible investigation into Obama need not be public. Insert COL Jessup's speech to illustrate my POV.

I have spoken against the Hillary/Bengazhi investigation in the past because she was doing her job, yet some did not like the manner in which she did it. I had no issues with her colluding with the DNC to unfairly influence the election; as I'm sure it has happened in the past. It's just as a society we have grown into one that needs to know how the sausage is made. Just let the sausage makers make the sausages and you do what you do to contribute to society.

I think it's important to note that the HRC colluding with the DNC is a lame and thoughtless talking point that doesn't make much sense outside of conservative media. This is an example of a moments we as voters have to show we can't be manipulated by thoughtless talking points from those who know better, but just want to keep playing people as fools. Bernie isn't a Democrat. When asked even states he's not a Democrat. The DNC doesn't have to help him they don't work for any o'le body. They work to get a Democrat nominated. That's exactly what they did. Just as the RNC never helped any of the Paul's (Rand/Ron) or libertarians that caucused with them.

[jj22]

(05-23-2018, 10:43 AM)Griever Wrote: how do you know? I dont think you are privvy to what is going on behind closed doors concerning the indictments

we had 4 years of benghazi, and 3 years of "but her emails". All republican led, with nothing to show for it

Mueller (who is a republican, appointed by a republican who was appointed by trump) has gotten a lot more done in a year than they ever did against hillary (which was an actual nothing burger)

screaming fake and deep state setup makes you look ridiculous and puts you on par with hillary in the 90s when she claimed monica was a republican plant

Truth.

Clinton investigations 30 years 0 indictments

The Benghazi investigation 4 years 0 indictments

Russian collusion investigation 14 months 23 indictments (and they say nothings there, it should be ended and has gone on too long).

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps because there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady; 

Wrong.  At the time one of Trump's campaign advisers, George Papadopoulos, was bragging to foreign diplomats that he was getting access to Clintons stolen Emails from the Russians.  

Hard to claim that was not shady since Papadopolus has pled guilty to lying to federal agents about these contacts with Russia.

Guess not all the news makes it into the echo chamber.

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If this is shown to have any merit I hope quite a few care about it and it is not because they are ignorant. 

I would have been very upset if the FBI received this information and did NOT investigate.

The fact they did not release any of this during the campaign proves it was not politically motivated in any way.  I don't see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What could Obama do? The stuff the DNC pulled wasn't criminal, as far as I can tell. The government itself wouldn't have standing to bring a civil suit as they were not the damaged party. The responsibility to act on the corruption of the DNC would rest with the Sanders campaign as they would have the standing to bring a civil suit.

Thank you.

The DNC is a private party.  They are not part of the government.  They broke no laws.

This is just the lame red herring that the right wing echo chamber keeps throwing out there to deflect from all the crooks getting indicted by Meuller.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said people care because it shows possible bias by a sitting President. 

No it doesn't.  None of the information about the investigation into the Russian connection came out before the election.  Yet if there was even a hint of a reason to reopen the investigation into Clintons emails it was made public.

The FBI had information that one of Trumps campaign advisers was bragging about getting access to Clintons emails from the Russians.  How could they NOT investigate this?