• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 arrested in FBI raid at Obama appointee's office

MrVicchio said:
How many Obama appointees have issues? There's a TREND here, and thus when there is an FBI raid of some office that is associated with a recent Obama pick...
Click to expand...
So, a simple preview of the article would have shown that Obama nor his pick are part of this investigation.

Gee isn't reasonable to assume there is something going down?
Click to expand...
No it's not reasonable to assume there is something going down when the very news source says "Kundra isn't the target."
 
Kundra's "innocence" wasn't known at first, now was it?
 
MrVicchio said:
Kundra's "innocence" wasn't known at first, now was it?
Click to expand...

What? By who? You? The media? Hell, all you have to do is read any number of articles out there and you will clearly see that the FBI says "Kundra" is not involved. I don't take the first article I find and hit "submit." I'll usually corroborate a bit. Your own article said that the Kundra wasn't connected. I don't know what else to tell you on this.

But I find it odd that you are throwing his innocence up in the air like that considering the great American tenet of "innocent until proven guilty." Kundra is clearly not implicated in any articles I'm finding, and they don't even really leave the door open when they say "Kundra isn't involved."

But I suppose if you just have to connect this to Obama in some way go right ahead.
 
Lerxst said:
What? By who? You? The media? Hell, all you have to do is read any number of articles out there and you will clearly see that the FBI says "Kundra" is not involved. I don't take the first article I find and hit "submit." I'll usually corroborate a bit. Your own article said that the Kundra wasn't connected. I don't know what else to tell you on this.

But I find it odd that you are throwing his innocence up in the air like that considering the great American tenet of "innocent until proven guilty." Kundra is clearly not implicated in any articles I'm finding, and they don't even really leave the door open when they say "Kundra isn't involved."

But I suppose if you just have to connect this to Obama in some way go right ahead.
Click to expand...
If you read the OP, there was little known, I posted the first story out there (on Drudge at least) and there was no mention of what was going on.

ergo, the assumption another Obama pick went bust, in light of everything was fair to safe to assume. Granted it appears that is not to be the case here, and that's fine.

But to act like I just ignored the Kundra clearing stuff is asinine on your part, hell I POSTED the link clearing Kundra.
 
MrVicchio said:
If you read the OP, there was little known, I posted the first story out there (on Drudge at least) and there was no mention of what was going on.
Click to expand...
I did read the OP. The OP article clearly said Kundra wasn't connected.
From your articlce said:
Kundra has not been linked to Thursday's raid.
Click to expand...
That would have been my first clue. Nobody says you have to rush to be the first with a BN thread, a little patience and another mouse click or two would have probably prevented you from saying "so obviously we must assume the DC CTO is guilty as well."

ergo, the assumption another Obama pick went bust, in light of everything was fair to safe to assume. Granted it appears that is not to be the case here, and that's fine.
Click to expand...
Well I guess I just don't go out on a limb when the article says the guys wasn't linked and then say "we must assume he's guilty."

But to act like I just ignored the Kundra clearing stuff is asinine on your part, hell I POSTED the link clearing Kundra.
Click to expand...
But it didn't stop you from first leveling a guilty verdict even though the article clearly said he wasn't linked to the raid. See the problem? It's not asinine at all. You either ignored it or you didn't read the whole article.

It's a non-issue at this point.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
I did read the OP. The OP article clearly said Kundra wasn't connected.

That would have been my first clue. Nobody says you have to rush to be the first with a BN thread, a little patience and another mouse click or two would have probably prevented you from saying "so obviously we must assume the DC CTO is guilty as well."


Well I guess I just don't go out on a limb when the article says the guys wasn't linked and then say "we must assume he's guilty."


But it didn't stop you from first leveling a guilty verdict even though the article said he wasn't linked to the raid. See the problem?

It's a non-issue at this point.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I thought MrVicchio was being somewhat facetious with the "So we must assume he's guilty" comment by comparing it to the attacks on Bush for Abu-Garib.
 
They updated the story then, because the story originally said nothing about Kundra not being a target.
 
Tucker Case said:
To be fair, I thought MrVicchio was being somewhat facetious with the "So we must assume he's guilty" comment by comparing it to the attacks on Bush for Abu-Garib.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tucker, I WAS.
 
Tucker Case said:
To be fair, I thought MrVicchio was being somewhat facetious with the "So we must assume he's guilty" comment by comparing it to the attacks on Bush for Abu-Garib.
Click to expand...

I did not reach the same conclusion because he had already set the tone with the totality of his comments. He was openly commenting about Obama appointees being dirty prior to making that statement and speculating how high up the corruption went.

No biggie though because seriously this isn't really an issue now. I just took the tone of his post differently than you did.

Mr. V has stated his case, I stated mine, and I don't really want this to take up much more of the thread.

It's all good V.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom