The Next President is...

[17D_guy]

19 minutes ago, drewpey said:

If you were Putin and you wanted to create the maximum amount of chaos within the US...how would you tinker with the 2018 elections?

I'd get more R's elected who are in-line with the President, but view any D as an enemy of the state and refuse to compromise with the other (larger half) of the country.  Continue with the real fake news, bot spam and other info-war stuff to break the R's into further sub-groups calling each other cucks for maybe not wanting to deport a mexican who's been here for 30 years w/ a family working a job, paying taxes.

 

Forgot add - Continue the destruction of institutions (FBI, DOJ... DoD is next) that have represented not only a check on internal power, but a watchdog against our external foes infiltrating. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by 17D_guy

[HeloDude]

28 minutes ago, drewpey said:

How many presidents will we have to endure coming into office and wanting to build a bridge with Russia?  It's time to treat Russia as the aggressor it is.  Enact the sanctions, let them continue to economically wither.  It's infuriating a country with a GDP half that of California is left unchecked.

R's love Putin now, but wait until the 2018 elections.  If you were Putin and you wanted to create the maximum amount of chaos within the US...how would you tinker with the 2018 elections?

 

Here's what it comes down to and this will never change: Progressives, like yourself, are still very upset that Trump won in November 2016....especially after Trump was/is on record saying stupid/disrespectful shit, and coupled with nearly every poll/analysis saying Hillary had this election in the bag.  I get it--you and half the country don't like it, and the Gorsuch confirmation was additional salt in the wounds.  Also, traditional Republicans can't stand Trump either because he does not follow traditional Republican norms, hence why guys like McCain and Lindsey Graham aren't fans and are very reluctant to work with him on non-traditional legislation.  Conservatives (largest single group of the Republican base) don't like Trump for who he is/how he acts, but is fairly happy with what he has done over the first year (Gorsuch, tax cuts, saying pro-Israel stuff, etc).   This all leads to progessives scratching their heads even more as to how he won, how is he getting some things done, and how is he doesn't fold to their attacks on him.  So what do they do, they scream Russia and call him a racist.  Yet, if the economy is still humming along in 2020 (who knows if it will be, I have my doubts) then Trump will get re-elected, especially if the Dems go further left (Warren, Bernie, or Harris type candidate).  So in the meantime, progressives will stay the course on the Russia and racist talking points and truley hope something breaks in their favor.  Will it?  Possibly, but I doubt it.  

This is coming from a person who would have loved to see Rand Paul received the nomination, and would have been ok with Cruz as a second option.  Since there wasn't either, I supported Gary Johnson one again.  That being said, I appreciate Trump reducing more regulations (vs a net add), and adding guys like Gorsuch to the Supreme Court vs a guy like Garland.  I also come out ahead on the tax cuts, but will be annoyed (but not suprised) that they're not reducing overall federal spending which takes us further down the hole.  As for his crude/stupid comments, that doesn't affect my pocketbook when the economy is doing well, so I just continue to dislike him as a person and like it when he does stuff of which I approve.

But for you progresives screaming Russia, this short  conversation between Obama and Medvedev shows politicians will do whatever they want, whenever they want if it helps them/they can get away with it.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXx0zxTarE

[Vertigo]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Vertigo--since when are you in favor of sanctions? 

Where did I say I was?

 

I just wondered why his supporters back him not following the rule of laws.

 

Congress seemed fit to pass this law for a reason. Trump himself signed it, then refuses to act in accordance with it. Why? And don't tell me it's because he's trying to not escalate conflicts. That's b.s..

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

Where did I say I was?

 

I just wondered why his supporters back him not following the rule of laws.

 

Congress seemed fit to pass this law for a reason. Trump himself signed it, then refuses to act in accordance with it. Why? And don't tell me it's because he's trying to not escalate conflicts. That's b.s..

The same reason you and I support it when gun control laws aren't enforced, as well as drug laws.  

Edited February 4, 2018 by HeloDude

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

The same reason you and I support it when gun control laws aren't enforced, as well as drug laws.  

Personal liberty...and personal liberty... so no, we don't support the non-enforcement of the sanctions for the same reason.

[HeloDude]

10 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Personal liberty...and personal liberty... so no, we don't support the non-enforcement of the sanctions for the same reason.

Yes.  Just like progressives and libertarians don't want illegal aliens deported (just for different reasons).  The sanctions vs no sanctions relate to the same reason Obama wanted to open an embassy back in Cuba.

Look, if you don't like Trump, then don't like Trump and don't vote for him in 2020.  I just find it funny that those that worshiped Obama as the greatest president ever (they have pictures of him and his family on their FB pages) somehow honestly think Trump is worst person to have ever walked the Earth.  I'll support Trump's decisions when he does something I like and vice versa, same as I did with Obama.  Unfortunately with Obama, there was little to support--at the very least I thought he would have scaled back the NSA, reduced the drug laws, and ended the war in Afghanistan, neither of which happened.

[Azimuth]

17 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Yes.  Just like progressives and libertarians don't want illegal aliens deported (just for different reasons).  The sanctions vs no sanctions relate to the same reason Obama wanted to open an embassy back in Cuba.

Look, if you don't like Trump, then don't like Trump and don't vote for him in 2020.  I just find it funny that those that worshiped Obama as the greatest president ever (they have pictures of him and his family on their FB pages) somehow honestly think Trump is worst person to have ever walked the Earth.  I'll support Trump's decisions when he does something I like and vice versa, same as I did with Obama.  Unfortunately with Obama, there was little to support--at the very least I thought he would have scaled back the NSA, reduced the drug laws, and ended the war in Afghanistan, neither of which happened.

Well, he did take over when the economy had crashed and he had the stones to call for Bin Laden to be captured or killed.  He also didn't go through cabinet members as fast as Trump, nor did he have a few cabinet member plead guilty to federal crimes.  

You probably forgot that late 90's Republicans were calling Clinton the worst person in the world for getting a blowie and the obnoxious Ken Starr investigation.

I don't think Trump will be impeached due to possible collusion with the Russians.  I think the House, to much chagrin to Paul Ryan, will start the impeachment process via obstruction of justice and making false official statements.  If that's the case I don't believe the Senate will approve the charges, much like they didn't against Clinton and Andrew Johnson, however I believe it's going to cost Republicans seats in the 2020 election and the Trump a reelection bid.  You know, the same stuff that Nixon scoffed at around '72-'73 as he ran around obstructing justice and abuse of power until he was resigning two weeks prior to the House preferring impeachment charges against him August of 1974.  At least Obama and Nixon were lawyers and Nixon knew when to quit, Trump's and idiot an doesn't.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Azimuth

[Vertigo]

3 hours ago, Azimuth said:

I don't think Trump will be impeached due to possible collusion with the Russians.  I think the House, to much chagrin to Paul Ryan, will start the impeachment process via obstruction of justice and making false official statements. 

Don't be surprised if the investigation reveals a huge chunk of Trump's wealth was gained via money laundering, specifically laundering for Russians.

[brickhistory]

A Cabinet Secretary knowingly sent and received classified material via non-secure, non-government systems.  Not just once but dozens of times.  Her staff did likewise.  Even the President of the United States communicated to that official on that system.  Knowingly. (Although "knowingly" isn't a requirement to be prosecuted for mishandling classified information.  Just f'ing it up is enough if the Man wants to prosecute.)

The FBI interviewed that Secretary during an investigation, but not under oath.  Other subjects of that investigation were allowed to serve as legal council during that interview.  Those other subjects were also not under oath during their questioning.

The FBI agreed to only search part of the memories of multiple IT devices from those under investigation.  And to letting those devices be physically destroyed immediately following those limited searches.

U.S. citizens were deliberately unmasked from NSA collects.  The US Ambassador to the UN is responsible for 300 of those unmaskings in the last few weeks of the previous Administration.  Said Ambassador denies doing so.  So, if she did it, why?  If she didn't, who did using her name?  Why?

The Attorney General of the US met with the husband of a subject of an investigation privately during the investigation.

The Director of the FBI drafted his findings before the investigation had concluded.

The Director of the FBI, who investigates crimes but doesn't decide on prosecutions, made the determination to not prosecute.  And the Department of Justice was fine with that.

The Director of National Intelligence perjured himself to Congress regarding unmasking.  And, as a result of this memo, apparently about knowing of a FISA warrant to surveil an opposition political party.

The head of the FBI's CI division, who also did the investigation of that Cabinet Secretary and subordinates is the same one who was leading the investigation into Trump and associates.  Including conducting, under oath, the no-notice interview of Flynn which led to his guilty plea of lying to an FBI agent.

The now-fired Director of the FBI deliberately leaked classified info to a friend with the intent of that information to go to the media.  Which lead to the current special prosecutor. Who, until it was publicly known, used that same FBI CI investigator from above.  Who used a seemingly dodgy politically motiviated dossier that the wife of the number 3 man in the Department of Justice's wife worked on.

Corruption is always there, regardless of party.  Both sides suck.

But, we are supposed to be a nation of laws.

Try sending something interesting, but classified, to your home e-mail.

Ask for the Hillary option...

 

 

[Azimuth]

We are a nation of law, however impeachment was designed by the Framers to not be a legal proceeding, though it’s chaired by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, etc. The House was given a lot of latitude by the Framers to decide what “high crimes and misdemeanors” the House wants to prefer towards impeachment towards an elected official.

Ken Starr was interviewed last week and asked if it comes out that Trump lied to the public, should that be an impeachable offense? He answered yes. Which isn’t surprising because that’s what one of the impeachable offenses he listed in his report against Clinton.

[BFM this]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

Don't be surprised if the investigation reveals a huge chunk of Trump's wealth was gained via money laundering, specifically laundering for Russians.

Based on what?  A wet dream you had?

Really, now that the Meuller investigation is dragging itself into Ken Star proportions, I really want to know if there are any crimes behind the curtain, or if we're going to be subjected to years-long fishing expedition.  "Don't be surprised..."  GMAFB; if there's something we're missing spill it, dispense with the VagueBooking.  

Birther-gate was about as tiring as this trope.

Edited February 5, 2018 by BFM this

[brickhistory]

Yep.  Impeachment is not a law enforcement issue.  Rather a smart way the Founders came up with to help keep the three branches of government equal.

The purpose of the special counsel isn't legal, it's to set the groundwork for impeachment.  Politics is a rough sport.  Don't play if you can't take a hit.

Trump takes his chances with the special counsel.  On the other hand, how many of us could withstand the unlimited scope, resources, and effort that such an investigation entails, much less a billionaire with all the complicated things that must occur in that life?  

Mishandling classified and deliberate spying on Americans using the Intelligence Community for political gain is not politics, however.

It is illegal.

If something develops against Trump and he's impeached; so be it.  Liberals, including the establishment GOP, want Trump gone because he's a threat to them and their way of life.  Bill Clinton lied under oath as was impeached but not convicted and removed from office.  I expect Trump will likewise survive such an event, but won't make it for a 2020 run.  Which, IMO, is the point.  If you can't beat him, kneecap him.  Especially by the #neverTrumpers.

The senior ranks of the FBI has been revealed to be tilting to one side and putting a deliberate thumb on the scales of justice.  So they have only themselves to blame.

 

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

The senior ranks of the FBI has been revealed to be tilting to one side and putting a deliberate thumb on the scales of justice.

Which of those senior leaders exactly?

Maybe you mean the Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Session? Or is it Trump-appointed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein? Maybe Trump-appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray?

Those insidious liberal working to take down the President...they’re really playing the LONG, long game.

All they had to do to get here was be lifelong Republicans, then be personally vetted and hired by the President himself before they’d have enough power to take him down from the inside! Brilliant.

Probably would have been much easier to get Soros to bus a few more people over to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016.

“I’ll hire only the best people, believe me.”

1 year in: 2x guilty pleas, 2x indictments, 1 fired FBI Director, 6 fired/resigned top WH staff, 1 fired/resigned Cabinet Secretary, etc.

Mueller (another lifelong Republican FWIW) is not known to fuck around, so we’ll see where his investigation ends up. 

More to come at 11, stay tuned.

[ClearedHot]

A few questions that can perhaps be answered without bias?

1.  Did Obama weaponize the IRS against 501/3 (C) conservative organizations?  Yes...which at least plants the seed of believably that it was done with the FBI as well.

2.  Did Hillary mishandle VERY classified information and was she given a pass? Yes and how Liberals can give her a pass is beyond me.  How was the outcome memo drafted BEFORE they even interviewed her?  She lost...so what, that doesn't mean you ignore the law...PERIOD FUCKING DOT.

3.  Did Comey purposely release leak information to the press through a friend?  Was any of this information classified?  Yes he leaked it...was that legal?

If ANY of these questions have an unbiased yes answer then there is at least the potential something nefarious happened inside the FBI.

Despite the firings and resignations, the only guilty pleas appear to be related to lying to the FBI, ZERO evidence of collusion thus far....we shall see what comes out in the long run.

IMHO the Justice Department IG investigation will be far more damning and telling than the Mueller investigation. 

[Vertigo]

3 hours ago, BFM this said:

Based on what?  A wet dream you had?

Really, now that the Meuller investigation is dragging itself into Ken Star proportions, I really want to know if there are any crimes behind the curtain, or if we're going to be subjected to years-long fishing expedition.  "Don't be surprised..."  GMAFB; if there's something we're missing spill it, dispense with the VagueBooking.  

Birther-gate was about as tiring as this trope.

"You realise where this is going…This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose Weissman first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner…It’s as plain as a hair on your face…It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." - Trump's right hand man Paul Bannon

 

Also

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-fusion/sales-of-trump-properties-suggestive-of-money-laundering-researcher-idUSKBN1F727X

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/577624204/as-trump-enters-year-two-in-office-mueller-looking-at-money-laundering

 

http://www.newsweek.com/deutsche-bank-willing-report-jared-kushners-suspicious-transactions-robert-786011

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/russia-probe-senate-requests-documents-from-money-laundering-watchdog-agency.html

Edited February 5, 2018 by Vertigo
Add shit

[matmacwc]

That fits a leftist view, he never made money legally and stole it from poor people.  Ridiculous.  

[BFM this]

Paul Bannon, huh?  I get what you're saying.  Wouldn't hang my theories on one of that guy's quotes, regardless of leanings, but whatever blows your skirt up man.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

A few questions that can perhaps be answered without bias?

1.  Did Obama weaponize the IRS against 501/3 (C) conservative organizations?  Yes...which at least plants the seed of believably that it was done with the FBI as well.

2.  Did Hillary mishandle VERY classified information and was she given a pass? Yes and how Liberals can give her a pass is beyond me.  How was the outcome memo drafted BEFORE they even interviewed her?  She lost...so what, that doesn't mean you ignore the law...PERIOD FUCKING DOT.

3.  Did Comey purposely release leak information to the press through a friend?  Was any of this information classified?  Yes he leaked it...was that legal?

If ANY of these questions have an unbiased yes answer then there is at least the potential something nefarious happened inside the FBI.

Despite the firings and resignations, the only guilty pleas appear to be related to lying to the FBI, ZERO evidence of collusion thus far....we shall see what comes out in the long run.

IMHO the Justice Department IG investigation will be far more damning and telling than the Mueller investigation. 

Whataboutism at its finest.

1. No mention that the final Treasury IG report released in Sep 2017 found that the IRS gave extra scrutiny to what we can assume are both liberal and conservative groups, targeting words like, "Patriot," "Tea Party," "Occupy," and "Progressive." Are you against the IRS giving an extra check on the validity of the tax-exempt status of these groups regardless of political affiliation? Remember they're supposed to primarily be groups serving the public good, not primarily politically-oriented...I think we both know groups on all sides flaunt that intent with impunity. I'd prefer we more strictly enforce the law across the board; none of these groups (conservative, progressive or otherwise) should be tax-exempt if they are conducting unlawful political activity. Should we ask Trump-Appointed, Republican Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin if he stands behind his own department's report?

2. If Hillary were the President, let's consider re-litigating those questions (and you know the Congressional GOP would be). She's not President though and I frankly hope to never hear from her (or Bill) again. If law enforcement cleared her then I'm not sure I have any additional evidence to bring one way or the other.

3. Well, Comey testified under oath to Congress that what he shared was unclassified. I don't like leaks from the FBI all that much, but then again at that point Comey was a private citizen who was popping flares against his boss who was very publicly maligning him in statements and claimed to have "tapes" of their private conversations. Again, I don't have any additional evidence to bring one way or the other here either.

Re: lying to the FBI and attacking the FBI...this tweet has aged well and ya know what Ms. Sanders, I agree!

BL: I say at this point let's get it all out there. All the memos. All the tax returns. All the IG investigations. All the Congressional investigations. The Mueller investigation. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may...is the President?

Edited February 5, 2018 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

^^I'm still waiting to find out what happened with Operation Fast and Furious...but Obama said no when he was president :(

Like I said, all presidents are politicians and don't truly care about Liberty--they care about their base and ideology.  

[MooseAg03]

If the IRS was just doing their jobs why did Lois Lerner plead the 5th?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/

Maybe she was trying to avoid process crimes like we’re seeing now with Flynn. Or maybe she was part of a crooked administration harassing political opponents.

[17D_guy]

21 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

Maybe she was trying to avoid process crimes like we’re seeing now with Flynn. Or maybe she was part of a crooked administration harassing political opponents.

Are we really calling the shady blatantly illegal shit Flynn did a process crime?

[drewpey]

21 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Are we really calling the shady blatantly illegal shit Flynn did a process crime?

Kidnapping is a process...

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Are we really calling the shady blatantly illegal shit Flynn did a process crime?

Well if the DOJ doesn't do much to him, he's still part of the UCMJ.  The CAAF ruled last year that retirement is just a "change in status."  Therefore retirees are to be held to the UCMJ and tried for crimes if the Service Secretary recalls them.  The max punishment for Flynn's crime he pled guilty to is five years confinement and a dismissal.  

[Vertigo]

12 hours ago, BFM this said:

Paul Bannon, huh?  I get what you're saying.  Wouldn't hang my theories on one of that guy's quotes, regardless of leanings, but whatever blows your skirt up man.

Conveniently leaving out the rest of the news articles I posted. Head in the sand.

[ClearedHot]

13 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Whataboutism at its finest.

1. No mention that the final Treasury IG report released in Sep 2017 found that the IRS gave extra scrutiny to what we can assume are both liberal and conservative groups, targeting words like, "Patriot," "Tea Party," "Occupy," and "Progressive." Are you against the IRS giving an extra check on the validity of the tax-exempt status of these groups regardless of political affiliation? Remember they're supposed to primarily be groups serving the public good, not primarily politically-oriented...I think we both know groups on all sides flaunt that intent with impunity. I'd prefer we more strictly enforce the law across the board; none of these groups (conservative, progressive or otherwise) should be tax-exempt if they are conducting unlawful political activity. Should we ask Trump-Appointed, Republican Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin if he stands behind his own department's report?

2. If Hillary were the President, let's consider re-litigating those questions (and you know the Congressional GOP would be). She's not President though and I frankly hope to never hear from her (or Bill) again. If law enforcement cleared her then I'm not sure I have any additional evidence to bring one way or the other.

3. Well, Comey testified under oath to Congress that what he shared was unclassified. I don't like leaks from the FBI all that much, but then again at that point Comey was a private citizen who was popping flares against his boss who was very publicly maligning him in statements and claimed to have "tapes" of their private conversations. Again, I don't have any additional evidence to bring one way or the other here either.

Re: lying to the FBI and attacking the FBI...this tweet has aged well and ya know what Ms. Sanders, I agree!

BL: I say at this point let's get it all out there. All the memos. All the tax returns. All the IG investigations. All the Congressional investigations. The Mueller investigation. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may...is the President?

1.  Did you read the final Treasury IG Report?  "In a prior audit, TIGTA determined that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to select tax-exempt applications for further review."..."While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing. In order to centralize these cases for review and processing, names and descriptions of several left-leaning groups were placed on the BOLO spreadsheet. Some left-leaning applicants experienced lengthy processing delays and inappropriate and burdensome requests for information."  Do i want the IRS to do its job, yes.  Do I want them to observe the rule of law, ABSOLUTELY.  The rate of right versus left groups reviewed was 10:1 and as noted before if this was all above board why did good ole Lois plead the 5th?

2.  AGAIN, what difference does it make if she won or lost?  The issue is did she break the law and when you say she has already been cleared there are still many questions given the people who cleared her.  I notice you didn't address the memo Comey drafted clearing her before she was even interviewed?  Why did McCabe push up his retirement the day after the IG visited the director?  What about changing the language...careless...gimme a break.  The people at the center of clearing her have at least the perception of impropriety and for the American people that deserves a non-partisian look. 

3.  Comey testified under oath...oh well, that clears it all up for me.  I do not believe him and I hope we get a true read one way or the other on the classification of what he released.  Either way his self-righteous Twitter posts  are sickening.

I disagree with Trumps Tweets and attacks on the FBI.  I disagree with many things Trump has said and done, but some very shady things went down under Obama and as a citizen I think we deserve the truth. 

When Mueller's report comes out I think you will see a few more people on the edges charged with obstruction and lying.  Don Jr will look like an even bigger stooge, but there will be no collusion.  Given all the leaks don;t you think that would have leaked by now?

When the IG report comes out I think we will see a few rogue FBI folks did some very bad things as they attempted to stop Trump from taking office.  I think we will also find deep connections between the dossier and the Clinton campaign.

In the end, America is paying the price, more divided than we have been in 100 years.