US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

As for the Clinton investigation in general, the report blows some pretty big holes in the Trumpster narrative. Might want to have a read the next time you plan on using the "But her eeeemaaails" argument.

Ok I'll bite. Just what is the 'Trumpster narrative' in regards to the Clinton investigation?

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Word searches, really? Please use common sense for a moment. What is your motive for posting here? What decision have you ever made in life that did not have a motive? Unless you are a mindless bag of rocks you have a reason for everything you do in life even when it comes too improper considerations.

Who was Comey's 'Higher Authority'?

Rockstar needs a snickers bar

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Word searches, really?

Yes, word searches. When the report is the size of a good size book, word search comes handy.

Please use common sense for a moment.

I am going by what the report says. Everything else is assumptions.

What is your motive for posting here?

My motive is to counter the BS in this instance by using th report itself, not some biased media source as you seem to use.

What decision have you ever made in life that did not have a motive?

Probably none.. so what? There are multiple types of motives, some are bad, some are good, some are ordinary like me going out to buy food because I have none.

The IG plainly states they found no documentary or testimonial evidence that prove his motives were political but then neither do they attempt to show what his motives were otherwise.

I posted a number of quotes that said "no evidence" was found of bias or improper considerations.

The most likely reason is like the prosecution, IG is under no obligation to prove motive just illegal actions, and they did.

The report says what their intentions were, I posted about that too. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Who was his 'Higher Authority'?

It's the name of his book, often it is the publishers who decide the name.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by u crank

Ok I'll bite. Just what is the 'Trumpster narrative' in regards to the Clinton investigation?

That Hillary Clinton got out of it without charges because of bias/favorism/you name it.


That's what Trump has been touting for a year or so now.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

That Hillary Clinton got out of it without charges because of bias/favorism/you name it.

That's actually a fairly acurate statement.

In Oct. 2015,

Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/u...i-inquiry.html

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

So here you have the President of the USA on national television interfering and commenting on an ongoing investigation. This could not be a clearer message to Hillary supporters in The DOJ and the FBI. The President has spoken.

Then you have the top lawyer in the USA, Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with the husband of a person under investigation by the FBI. I guess they talked about the weather.

Then there is the investigation. It was not a normal FBI investigation. A key witness, Cheryl Mills was present when Mrs. Clinton was interviewed. She was later granted immunity for her cooperation. Evidence was destroyed, there was no grand jury, no subpoenas, and no search warrants.

And then there was the people doing the investigation.

From the IG report.

We were particularly concerned about text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, and the implication in some of these text messages, particularly Strzok’s August 8 text message (“we’ll stop” candidate Trump from being elected), was that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Dowly

That Hillary Clinton got out of it without charges because of bias/favorism/you name it.

I held a Top Secret clearance while in the U.S. Navy. Had I been that lackadaisical with anything marked "confidential" or above, I would have found myself in an article 32 hearing at the very least. Someone had to go out of their way for Clinton to get a pass notwithstanding the media's own spin.

[August]

One more thing: she might be our next president, the last thing you need [is] going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more [DOJ] than [FBI]?

Feb. 25, 2016. Text by FBI agent Lisa Page to Boyfriend Peter Strzok (FBI agent in charge of the Clinton email server investigation) as he prepared to interview Clinton. Fear is a motive too.

[Platapus]

I think it would be a monumental mistake for the DNC to nominate Hillary for president. As last election proved, the baggage she has (whether deserved or undeserved) is an unsurmountable barrier for too many voters.

And honestly, I don't think she can bring anything to the table that would justify the risk of them losing another election.

Henry Ford once said " You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do" But, in my opinion, that's all that Hillary has done---built her reputation on what she is going to do, but not a lot on what she was actually able to do. All one has to do is look at her record after 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as SecState. Lots of what she wants to do and what she promises to accomplish, but rather light on being able to actually accomplish things.

As I have written in the past, Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate that could lose against a buffoon like Trump.

The DNC better pick a winnable candidate for 2020. The Democrats are perfectly capable of losing the 2020 election as they did in 2016.

[Mr Quatro]

I didn't know they had that many to run against Trump or Pence or General Kelly or whoever ran last time in the GOP

Democrats set earlier 2020 primary convention date

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ate/ar-AAyHESg

Democrats will hold their convention in 2020 earlier than they have in more than two decades, Democratic operatives tell CNN, partly out of anticipation of a crowded and contentious primary.

The Democratic National Convention is slated to take place from July 13 to July 16, 2020, almost two weeks earlier than the 2016 convention.

Democratic National Committee officials, including chair Tom Perez and interim DNC CEO Mary Beth Cahill, have considered a series of factors in deciding to host their biggest political event earlier than normal, party operatives tell CNN. But a key reason for the decision is the expectation the 2020 primary could be a combative affair with more than two dozen Democrats running, making it essential that the party allow more time for tensions to cool after a nominee is officially selected.

[em2nought]

Democrats set earlier 2020 primary convention date

They obviously need more time to "arrange" things without leaving as much evidence this time around. They were pretty sloppy last time, but then nobody ever told them they might lose, so they never expected a light to shine on any of it.

[Skybird]

Trumps says the US will leave the UN Human Rights Something. I say "Bravo!" for that! This ugly body is an incarnation of institutionalised antisemitism, excuses and covers human rights violators and gives a stage for to many war criminals and dubious godfathers of political and murderous crime, turning the offender into a monitor over human rights all too often. The whole body seems to run by the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights and thus has embraced Sharia supremacy over any human rights there are. In no other body of the UN, the cancer tumors that have conquered it and turned it into a cloud of rotten scents celebrate bigger, louder parties. Its a tool of globla jihad now, plain and simple.

Europe should follow the American example.

Of course it will not, pitiful as it is.

[Catfish]

you are right, only that Dump does not leave it because of the reasons you mentioned. The 'president' does not care for human rights at all.

However it is interesting one person can do that without consulting another government institution.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

you are right, only that Dump does not leave it because of the reasons you mentioned.

Right like you have any clue at all what the Presidents reasons might be.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Catfish

The 'president' does not care for human rights at all.

Since I don't have kids, if I was taking the abuse that's being leveled 24/7 I'd be considering this in the back of my brain: Trump and all the Republicans should just come out of the closet as "Democrats" and switch parties, then give the Democrats every last thing they want so we can sit back and watch it ALL burn. Those of us who are left can then "maybe" rebuild from the rubble in the distant future. Call it the Colombia Doctrine maybe. The only path to a better future is to hit the absolute bottom first.



The only "catch" is our nuclear arsenal which, if we didn't dismantle, would eventually do us all in when we became too stupid/poor to maintain it any longer. ...and if we did that China would just claim our land for unpaid debt and exterminate anyone left so "catch 22".

[Catfish]

this is not about democrats or republicans, it is about one big error who became 'president'.
i need one look and listen to one sentence, and what this blubbering something talks about, and especially *how* it says it and which vocabulary it uses. If l no one sees or understands what this is about...
Have fun making America great again, i'm out.