• 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!

Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations

Nalu said:
This is what I mean. It's not reasonable to call the Russia investigation a hoax, let alone the biggest political CT in US history.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think you misunderstood what he said. He wasn't saying that the investigation into Russian interfering in the 2016 election was a CT and a hoax... He specifically said "the collusion hoax", referring to the whole "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election" narrative.

.
 
Grim17 said:
I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I think you misunderstood what he said. He wasn't saying that the investigation into Russian interfering in the 2016 election was a CT and a hoax... He specifically said "the collusion hoax", referring to the whole "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election" narrative.

.
Click to expand...

Again, not a hoax.
 
Nalu said:
Again, not a hoax.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it pretty much was. There was never any compelling evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, just an unverified, uncorroborated opposition research document obtained and compiled through foreign sources, that Hillary and the DNC paid for to specifically Smear Trump before the election.

The fact that so many on the left, including prominent democrats in DC, continue to push that baseless, phony narrative really saddens me.
 
Grim17 said:
Sorry, but it pretty much was. There was never any compelling evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, just an unverified, uncorroborated opposition research document obtained and compiled through foreign sources, that Hillary and the DNC paid for to specifically Smear Trump before the election.

The fact that so many on the left, including prominent democrats in DC, continue to push that baseless, phony narrative really saddens me.
Click to expand...

The trump tower meeting was illegal coordination.

But Mueller wasn't sure he could prove they knew it was illegal to have a meeting to receive information damaging to a political rival directly from a foreign government.

So "collusion", but not enough evidence to prosecute.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure theres a war on Christmas, but there is no question that the major media is biased to the left.
Click to expand...

Not sure, eh?
 
Here's a radical thought; how about banning all political contributions from anyone? What do politicians need the money for anyway; a bigger light show than the other guy? How about forcing these bastards to sell themselves on policy for a change? Give them all equal air time, and ban negative mud-slinging advertising about your opponent.
 
apdst said:
There has to be an investigation to find out exactly who knew what and when. Digging into literally every aspect of the candidates' lives, taxes, family's taxes, everything. Nothing will be off limits.
Click to expand...

It would seem so. Thus far it looks like something that was a plot between Nader, Khawaja and the others. How much the recipients knew about the scheme will be interesting to discover; especially at what level of the campaigns/committee. Do you think Trump will cooperate in disclosing records?
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Here's a radical thought; how about banning all political contributions from anyone? What do politicians need the money for anyway; a bigger light show than the other guy? How about forcing these bastards to sell themselves on policy for a change? Give them all equal air time, and ban negative mud-slinging advertising about your opponent.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm hopeful this will make another case as to why this it's important to nip this "pay to play" nonsense in the bud. Incidents like these are often used to point fingers at a particular party, but this indictment spans across donations to both. What needs reminding is the fact powerful people/businesses care less about political affiliation and much more about who will serve their interests. It's made clear in this particular case because of the contributions to people on either side.
 
Last edited:
Trump said:
Dirty Dems getting exposed for corruption in campaign finance illegal scam.

Dirty Schiff and more exposed




UPDATE: Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats
Click to expand...

Nothing about dems and shiff in that indictment.

Not only is Nader a sex offender, he's done a lot of work for republicans.

George Nader (businessman) - Wikipedia


FBI work with criminals all the time, states evidence, and all that. Don't be stupid and try and paint this as some kind of dem thing, noting that Mueller IS NOT A DEM.
 
OscarLevant said:
Nothing about dems and shiff in that indictment.

Not only is Nader a sex offender, he's done a lot of work for republicans.

George Nader (businessman) - Wikipedia


FBI work with criminals all the time, states evidence, and all that. Don't be stupid and try and paint this as some kind of dem thing, noting that Mueller IS NOT A DEM.
Click to expand...

Trump(the poster) seems to have conveniently forgotten that these same folks donated to the Trump inaugural committee as well.
 
less right said:
If these guys are guilty they should pay the price.

Next up, Rudy, Lev, and Igor.
Click to expand...

but then you acknowledge that Barr's investigations may have merit, yes?
 
snakestretcher said:
Here's a radical thought; how about banning all political contributions from anyone? What do politicians need the money for anyway; a bigger light show than the other guy? How about forcing these bastards to sell themselves on policy for a change? Give them all equal air time, and ban negative mud-slinging advertising about your opponent.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if the US were to impose limits on the length of time politicians/candidates could be out on the campaign trail. The system as it is now, pushes an elected official to begin campaigning for the next election shortly after taking office.

Putting a limit of 90 days on all campaigning - and the funding thereof - could be a beginning. There is of course the problem of "free speech", so how could the limits be enacted without violating the right to speak out. Since Citizens United told us that money is free speech and that corporations are persons with the right to support candidates, Americans will have the problem of funding for some time to come.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.

In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Click to expand...
 
dairyair said:
Campaign finance laws are all about under handed money going to political campaigns.
Isn't that what the GOP fought for?
Click to expand...

it would be a fantasy to believe that only republicans had their greedy hands out
 
George Nader - the guy who donated $1 million to the Trump Inauguration. Okay.
 
ElChupacabra said:
It would seem so. Thus far it looks like something that was a plot between Nader, Khawaja and the others. How much the recipients knew about the scheme will be interesting to discover; especially at what level of the campaigns/committee. Do you think Trump will cooperate in disclosing records?
Click to expand...

There should definitely be a limitless investigation.
 
Why are the republicans on this forum cheering this?

When they caught Flynn on similar charges the cons bitched about process crimes, or investigations in search of crimes.

When they got Manafort, and others on similar charges, the narrative was the same.

So why do they care now?

Hmm.
 
snakestretcher said:
Here's a radical thought; how about banning all political contributions from anyone? What do politicians need the money for anyway; a bigger light show than the other guy? How about forcing these bastards to sell themselves on policy for a change? Give them all equal air time, and ban negative mud-slinging advertising about your opponent.
Click to expand...

That would violate the 1st Amendment.

Also, campaigns cost money. It has to come from somewhere.
 
Obscurity said:
Why are the republicans on this forum cheering this?

When they caught Flynn on similar charges the cons bitched about process crimes, or investigations in search of crimes.

When they got Manafort, and others on similar charges, the narrative was the same.

So why do they care now?

Hmm.
Click to expand...

What charges are you referring to?
 
ahh I love the smell of burning corruption in the morning.

lets all just take a second to remember, without an outsider like DTrump as president to put them at odds, none of this would be getting investigated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom