• 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!

AG William Barr says 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, is reviewing whether it was lawful

prometeus said:
Because you lie and are unable to support your assertion? No, only amused.

If I am what you say, then you who lied and are unable to support the assertion you made, are what?
Click to expand...

Lol. You're cancerous.
 
Now that Barr's Russian links are being exposed. It's clear he should have recused himself from involvement with the Mueller investigation.
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, Hillary was slaving on Clinton Tower right up to the election day. Meanwhile, Russian oligarchs were often laundering money on her NY condo projects.....View attachment 67255117

Really, can we stop with this nonsense and join 2019. Can you offer up an actual comment on the point at hand. Hillary is completely irrelevant.

Tell you what, if you actually have an argument there, let's here it. Show me a document that has Hillary and her people equally intertwined with Russians as I showed you on Trump. I produced support for my point, you want to respond, show us your support (political porn, btw, is not support).

Sorry, but you point just is not true and does not deflect from the notion that Trump surrounded himself with crooks with Russian connections, meaning our justice department and national security had a DUTY to make sure there were no improprieties.

Let's see it again: All of Donald Trump’s Ties to Russia and Putin, in 7 Charts - POLITICO Magazine
Click to expand...
So, you guys must buy "Trump Cards" (pun intended) by the gross.
 
Bullseye said:
So, you guys must buy "Trump Cards" (pun intended) by the gross.
Click to expand...

No, us guys can stay on subject without reaching into irrelevant "whataboutisms". That said, I do appreciate the 'no win' position Trump supporters are put in whenever they have to defend the man. In any argument of moral depravity, clearly Trump's name is a trump card.
 
SLC said:
The CIA spies all the time. Halper worked for the CIA. Halper's former father in law was the Director of the CIA. Halper was on loan to the FBI when he spied on Carter Page and Papa D . If that is predicated on a legal basis its legal if its predicated on BS its illegal. Barr is looking into if the predicate was legal or not. Also the wire tapping of Carter Page was done on FISA warrants that were obtained under false pretenses and that appears to be illegal also. The IG is investigating that now and has been in contact with Barr. The word is the IG will make criminal referrals to Barr. I call that spying and apparently so does AG Barr. He knows more about the law than you or I do so I'll go with his legal opinion over your legal opinion. :lol:
Click to expand...

Red:
No ****, Sherlock! It's job is to spy on foreign countries.


Blue:
Seriously. You've invoking one of Trump's conspiracy theories, ONE EVEN FOX NEWS HAS REJECTED.



I won't respond to the rest of what you wrote because, Dude, I don't have time for conspiracy theorists. I got to "Halper" and stopped reading.

FWIW, I won't ever again read or respond to something you write. You can bandy conspiracy theories around, and perhaps some folks are bored enough to dignify them with a response. I'm not among those people. Bye.
 
humbolt said:
Lol. You're cancerous.
Click to expand...
You are too preoccupied with labeling me while you can not support that labeling either, nor does that change the fact that you lied and can not support what you assert. What does that make you?
 
upsideguy said:
No, us guys can stay on subject without reaching into irrelevant "whataboutisms". That said, I do appreciate the 'no win' position Trump supporters are put in whenever they have to defend the man. In any argument of moral depravity, clearly Trump's name is a trump card.
Click to expand...
What I've noticed is that the people throwing the "whatabout" flag is that they do it as a diversion because they've been backed into a corner faced with their own hypocrisy and are desperately trying to escape.
 
prometeus said:
You are too preoccupied with labeling me while you can not support that labeling either, nor does that change the fact that you lied and can not support what you assert. What does that make you?
Click to expand...

I offered the arguments of legal authorities which you declined to address, and after all the insults, It's patently obvious you lack the ability to do so. Go chase the bugs out of your merkin and see if you can sell your horse **** elsewhere.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
No ****, Sherlock! It's job is to spy on foreign countries.


Blue:
Seriously. You've invoking one of Trump's conspiracy theories, ONE EVEN FOX NEWS HAS REJECTED.



I won't respond to the rest of what you wrote because, Dude, I don't have time for conspiracy theorists. I got to "Halper" and stopped reading.

FWIW, I won't ever again read or respond to something you write. You can bandy conspiracy theories around, and perhaps some folks are bored enough to dignify them with a response. I'm not among those people. Bye.
Click to expand...


DUDE RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA and you accuse me of conspiracy theory . Congratulation you just blew up the Irony Meter. :lamo
 
humbolt said:
I offered the arguments of legal authorities which you declined to address
Click to expand...
Why do you keep lying? You offered nothing of the sort. You named a few law schools and asserted that some people agreed with your assertion. Well that amounts to crap as far as evidence goes. You posted no link or quotes by anyone in support of your empty assertion, but lied several times about it instead.
 
trixare4kids said:
Thanks for posting... Maybe the crowd that is still denying the Trump/Russia nonsense will have the courage to listen to it.
Click to expand...

You're Welcome. Perhaps, they will unless that want to continue in their :screwy blue state of denial.

Roseann:)
 
SLC said:
You first. Try again to explain how you can obstruct justice in a non crime.
Click to expand...

It can be done-- but not by a president or a prosecutor.
And that's because it's their job to shape and direct investigations and prosecutions.
 
SLC said:
You first. Try again to explain how you can obstruct justice in a non crime.
Click to expand...
Barr made reference to this in his summary of the most important points in Mueller's report. The apparent fact Mueller did not find evidence Trump or his team colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary, weakens the claim he obstructed justice by trying to interfere, impede or influence the investigation of whether he did collude. However, the absence of a 'successful' outcome of the investigation would not vitiate the possibility of collusion. Some may claim Mueller did not find evidence of collusion due to Trump's obstruction (so there would be an underlying crime).

Obstruction of justice is somewhat vague, interfering and influencing an investigation are not clear and self-evident acts, it is evident Trump did not impede the investigation. Due to the vagueness of obstruction, people will differ on what conduct rises to an actionable level. I don't think Trump's recurring tweets of "fake news", "witch hunt" or even "no collusion", rise to an actionable level of obstruction, they don't appear to have influenced, interfered or impeded Mueller's efforts. Some may claim such tweets affected the morale among investigators, their commitment and the quality of their work, but this is very subjective and would be hard to show. Firing Comey and Sessions might look like obstruction, but in both cases there were other documented justifications which show other motives, though some may claim that these are just factors that were used to conceal the true reason for their termination.

Mueller's report is due tomorrow, I expect we will immediately get comments here on how it proves both collusion and obstruction, it will be interesting.
 
SLC said:
You did not address the essences of my post. Reread and try again. You cannot obstruct justice on a non crime.
Click to expand...

:lol:

:2rofll:

:lamo
 
SLC said:
If non underlying crime has been committed then what is justice? What would be obstruction of that justice? The obstruction would be falsely prosecuting that crime. Try to stop false prosecution of a none crime isn’t obstruction of justice
Click to expand...

Yeah, obstruction of illegal witch hunts isnt an obstruction of justice. Its an obstruction of an injustice. And these obstruction of justice charges are particuliarly absurd now that we know that the DOJ instructed the FBI that they wouldnt be filing charges against Clinton even though the top lawyer in the FBI was advocating doing so.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Obstruction of justice is somewhat vague, interfering and influencing an investigation are not clear and self-evident acts, it is evident Trump did not impede the investigation. Due to the vagueness of obstruction, people will differ on what conduct rises to an actionable level. I don't think Trump's recurring tweets of "fake news", "witch hunt" or even "no collusion", rise to an actionable level of obstruction, they don't appear to have influenced, interfered or impeded Mueller's efforts.
Click to expand...

If the DOJ instructing the FBI that they wont be bringing charges against Hillary before the investigation is completed, isnt obstruction, nothing Trump did was obstruction.
 
Bullseye said:
What I've noticed is that the people throwing the "whatabout" flag is that they do it as a diversion because they've been backed into a corner faced with their own hypocrisy and are desperately trying to escape.
Click to expand...

Your "what I noticed" is a personal anecdote and not an argument.

A "whataboutism" in debate theory is a valid form of argument, but it is an inherently a concession as to the main proposition. For example, if you are pulled over for speeding, you only use a "whataboutism" when you can't deny the argument. "Well, officer, what about all the cars that passed me?" You can't defend your own speeding so you pull others into the mud. You have conceded that you did indeed speed.

Its fundamentally a weak argument (because you are conceeding the point), but if its all you got, you use it.

The "whataboutism" that I responded to fits that to a tee. Unfortunately, as with most Trump "whataboutism's", it was weak in its own right as Clinton did not have anywhere near the ties to Russia that Trump had...as I pointed out and documented, while the other poster left the discussion in shame.
 
upsideguy said:
Your "what I noticed" is a personal anecdote and not an argument.

A "whataboutism" in debate theory is a valid form of argument, but it is an inherently a concession as to the main proposition. For example, if you are pulled over for speeding, you only use a "whataboutism" when you can't deny the argument. "Well, officer, what about all the cars that passed me?" You can't defend your own speeding so you pull others into the mud. You have conceded that you did indeed speed.

Its fundamentally a weak argument (because you are conceeding the point), but if its all you got, you use it.

The "whataboutism" that I responded to fits that to a tee. Unfortunately, as with most Trump "whataboutism's", it was weak in its own right as Clinton did not have anywhere near the ties to Russia that Trump had...as I pointed out and documented, while the other poster left the discussion in shame.
Click to expand...

It isn't a weak argument. Mr. Trump did not conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 elections.
So now we are left with legal contacts and connections which existed between Americans and Russians. If one wishes to argue that they are immoral and wrong, ok. But then why limit such criticism to Trump?
Mrs. Clinton wanted to help construct a Russian Silicon Valley (over the objections of the intelligence community). Is that worse than wanting to build a hotel?
 
Athanasius68 said:
It isn't a weak argument. Mr. Trump did not conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 elections.
So now we are left with legal contacts and connections which existed between Americans and Russians. If one wishes to argue that they are immoral and wrong, ok. But then why limit such criticism to Trump?
Mrs. Clinton wanted to help construct a Russian Silicon Valley (over the objections of the intelligence community). Is that worse than wanting to build a hotel?
Click to expand...
Yes, it was a weak argument. As was the post where you doubled down on the weak argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom