Isn’t it time to identify Obama as the New Nixon, but multiples worse

[Gaugingcatenate]

Facts have a well known liberal bias.

Btw, thanks for using the small case l in late. That is deliberate, and most automatically type Late, as if it was a name, and not a mystery. Thanks.)

I will grant the liberal bias...just not any association with actual facts generally.

Happy to accomodate the lower case.

 

[late]

I will grant the liberal bias...just not any association with actual facts generally.

This thread is ridiculous.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That is one of the silliest posts I have have seen. Obama got off with no charges, simply because his Attorney Generals (Holder and Lynch) flatly refused to appoint special prosecutors to dig into any scandal that occurred during his administration.One should have been appointed for Fast and Furious as well as the IRS treating Tea Party groups different when they applied for 502 status. A special prosecutor certainly should have been appointed over Hillary Clinton's email scandal. As for Nixon resigning in shame at least he had the conscience to feel ashamed and did not put the nation and his family through impeachment hearings. And Obama went rogue in his second term.

The House and Senate could open their own investigation and even appoint a special investigator. They investigated Hillary Clinton over one lie about Benghazi. They didn't find any crime but they found email security mistakes and tried to prosecute her for it.

If there was anything credible on Obama, if he even jaywalked, the Republican House and Senate would have impeached him just as the Republican House impeached Bill Clinton for lying to hide an affair.

Obama's crimes exist only in your imagination. The fact that you would make this factless claim proves you're just an irrational person who should be ignored.

 

[veritas1]

He ordered the DOJ to investigate the FBI and anybody in the Obama administration. This was less than a week ago.

That's persecution? If so, Trump has been persecuted for a year.

 

[Cardinal]

That's persecution? If so, Trump has been persecuted for a year.

You’re dealing in conspiracy theories; I’m not. Also, it was never my expectation that you would take issue with trump’s takeover of the DOJ. Recall the post of mine you originally responded to.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

That is like asking for the impossible.

Of the pathologically incapable.

 

[late]

I lived through Watergate.

The comparison is nuts.

Nixon's Attorney General went to jail, as did Dean and several others. 40 were indicted, some that got off were guilty as hell.

It ripped the country apart.

There were problems during the Obama years. One was that the country was already ripped apart. Another was that the Republicans started the era declaring themselves publicly, "The Party of No". Cheating and dirty politics (which is why Nixon was kicked to the curb) was already a way of life. Their response to the racist outrage was to get even worse.

Most of what Republicans said about Hillary, while she was head of State, were blatant lies. Even worse, they had cut the budget for security (and lots of other things) and then tried to blame anyone they could to distract from the fact that a lack of funding created a lot of those problems.

This is no more, and no less, than yet another absurd attempt to distract people from Trump's criminality.

 

[veritas1]

One, it's only a fairy tail if it was intentional dishonesty. That was not the case. pretty much everyone, even in the US congress, including Bill, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and all of the other usual suspects believed that the Saddam Regime had vast stocks of WMDs View the video at the bottom of this post. And it was up to the Iraq regime to prove that they had destroyed wmd material that previous inspectors had found and the regime had admitted to. That responsibility includes immediate access to sites the inspectors show up at. Two, the US, never in it's history has been required to get a permission slip from the UN to go to war with anyone. And the UN failed in it's responsibilities as they failed to enforce the many versions of sanctions against the Iraq regime. If one failed, they would just pass another, then another, and another, so on.




Saddam was more of a danger to our allies, however with the threat he represented to Kuwait and the Saudis, he was in effect a threat to the entire free world. The 1991 war was about Iraq overrunning Kuwait and then lining up on the Saudi border. He was lined up to take control of roughly 50% of the world's known oil reserves at the time. With that much control over oil, he could have on a whim wrecked the economies of most of the free world. Russia uses sales of natural gas in much the same way in the baltic states. Even without the wmds Bush had all the justification he needed to invade iraq as they were in clear violation of all the agreements they signed onto to end the 1991 war.





But then the thing about support for wars is about how we go about them. Americans have supported virtually every war we have been involved in. The problem is when they go long. The elder Bush enjoyed full support for the 1991 war. it was quick and clean with clear objectives. he enjoyed something like 80% approval ratings when the war ended. The 2003 initially had broad public support, even from the democrats until it went long. Even the Vietnam War had initial support. if Bush had employed the surge strategy as soon as the insurgency popped up, I doubt his approval ratings would have suffered. The Afghanistan war is no longer popular because it has now gone on longer then any other war we have been in.

Yes, everyone was signing on to the WMD paranoia but it was a false one. The UN inspectors hadn't even finished when Bush decided we should go to war. WMD was simply a pretext concocted to justify removing Saddam, which was the real objective. Not that Saddam didn't have a few chemical weapons, just that he didn't have anything like what was claimed.

Secondly, Saddam was in no shape to invade or take over anything. First off, his army had been greatly decimated both by his war with Iran and his hammering in Kuwait. While the intervening decade had allowed him to build up his forces, he was not stupid and knew any hostile moves against Kuwait or other neighbors would bring in the US.

When you decide to commit yourself to war, you better have a damn good reason and some idea of how you are going to end it. Our reasoning was weak if not downright false and we had absolutely no idea of what the end game would be after Saddam was gone. The idea that Iraqis would all thank us and suddenly form a democratic government was naive silliness. All it did was let the Sunnis and Shiites go to war with each other as they always do. Since Saddam was Sunni and had kept the Shiite majority under his thumb, they took the opportunity for pay back. All the while, US troops are in the middle of the mess.

On a macro level, the entire affair was horrible from a geo-political standpoint. We took out the one real bulwark against Iran and, in so doing, contributed directly to the emergence of ISIS. The young Americans who died and those who came back with arms, legs or half their face blown off, did so for no good reason. Taking out Saddam accomplished nothing, prevented nothing and has led to a major destabilization of the region and greatly more power for Iran. It was a colossal waste of blood and treasure.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Instead of this kinda crap post, why not prove him wrong if he is so hilariously incorrect?

I ll tell you why, because what he says is true and youve no defense against unswerving truth...besides, so few on your side know how to debate even if, on the off chance, you were ever right.

It's not a crap post, it's the only response his hatred deserves. His avatar picture says it all.

Unswerving truth?

ROFLMAO! Good one.

"so few on your side know how to debate"; I don't use every propaganda technique taught in High School debate class like you've done in your post, if that's what you mean.

"even if, on the off chance, you were ever right". Right? All that matters to people like you and zimmer … winning … right or wrong. Getting out your message of hate is what matters. -sad

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No coma necessary; BTW.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The House and Senate could open their own investigation and even appoint a special investigator.

The House and the Senate have little real power other then the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents. They can hold someone who refuses in contempt. And there is a glaring difference between appointing a special investigator and a special prosecutor.

They investigated Hillary Clinton over one lie about Benghazi. They didn't find any crime but they found email security mistakes and tried to prosecute her for it.

How very partisan of you to attempt to change the definition of "crime" into "security mistake". Hillary knowingly sent and received classified emails on a private unsecured email server. A Secretary of State knows better. Then on top of that, she on her own destroyed roughly 30,000 of those emails, claiming they were all about Yoga classes, etc.

If there was anything credible on Obama, if he even jaywalked, the Republican House and Senate would have impeached him just as the Republican House impeached Bill Clinton for lying to hide an affair.

The whole premise of your post is intellectually dishonest. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing Justice. That he was lying about tawdry extramarital affairs does not excuse him from committing perjury. He broke the law. No exceptions are granted. As for Obama, I would have liked for him to face the same scrutiny as presidents before and after him. His claim that he went 8 years without a scandal are insanely dishonest. "Fast and Furious" was a scandal, especially for an anti-second amendment president. His weaponizing the IRS against the Tea party groups was a scandal. His blinking an eye over Hillary's email scandal was in itself a scandal. The abuse of the FISA courts to assist Hillary in her quest to defeat Trump was a scandal.

Obama's crimes exist only in your imagination. The fact that you would make this factless claim proves you're just an irrational person who should be ignored.

You are obviously a hyperpartisan and would not know a fact if it bit you on the backside.

 

[veritas1]

You’re dealing in conspiracy theories; I’m not. Also, it was never my expectation that you would take issue with trump’s takeover of the DOJ. Recall the post of mine you originally responded to.

I asked you how this was persecution. You made the claim. We must have different definitions of the word.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You are obviously a hyperpartisan and would not know a fact if it bit you on the backside.

OK, where are your facts that Obama himself directed the IRS to investigate the Tea Party? Where are your facts that Obama had anything to do with "Fast and Furious"? Where are your facts that Obama directed the FBI to seek warrants?

You claim I'm hyperpartisan but your Avatar itself is hyperpartisan. What kind of person has "ObamacareFail" as his username? A hyperpartisan.

 

[Cardinal]

I asked you how this was persecution. You made the claim. We must have different definitions of the word.

Explain what part of my post you found to be confusing. Be specific.

 

[Mustachio]

Obama was Nixon on steroids. And add one more tool to your list. He illegally used the IRS against tea party groups.

Yet Obama had no known ties to the IRS' actions and the IRS commissioner at the time is... the same one we have today under Trump.

 

[Irwin Corey]

The House and the Senate have little real power other then the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents. They can hold someone who refuses in contempt. And there is a glaring difference between appointing a special investigator and a special prosecutor.

Yet Gowdy spent millions over years trying to discredit Mrs. Clinton.

How very partisan of you to attempt to change the definition of "crime" into "security mistake".

But! In the end that's what it was a Breach of Security, not a crime.

The whole premise of your post is intellectually dishonest. Bill Clinton …

Whoa, I thought you were discussing Obama?

As for Obama, I would have liked for him to face the same scrutiny as presidents before and after him. His claim that he went 8 years without a scandal are insanely dishonest.

Oh, here you go. But, NO, they were absolutely true.

"Fast and Furious" was a scandal …

No, it was not, it was a mistake. Nothing like invading Iraq and Afghanistan but it was a mistake.

The abuse of the FISA courts to assist Hillary in her quest to defeat Trump was a scandal.

How did that go down? Again, there was no scandal.

You are obviously a hyperpartisan and would not know a fact if it bit you on the backside.

And you're not? But you would? ROFLMAO! Good one!:2razz:

 

[Somerville]

[deleted]

You are obviously a hyperpartisan and would not know a fact if it bit you on the backside.

Takes one to know one.

That radical librul James Comey, following investigation of Mrs Clinton's server found that 110 emails had information that was classified at the time it was sent, BUT none of them had classification markings when they had been sent to the server. After concluding the investigation, an additional 2100 emails were found to have some low-level classified information even though much of the information was already publically available from multiple sources.

It was also that librul Comey who made a public statement just weeks before the election in 2016 that the investigation had been reopened into Hillary's emails. Yet, nothing was said about the on-going investigation into the Trump campaign's Russian connections.

It took four years of investigating President Clinton on multiple actions before they caught him lying about oral sex with a consenting adult. Repubs really hated Bill and hated Barack Obama even more - obviously they still hold tightly to that irrational hatred, as evidenced by the words I read here and other sites.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Nixon covered for guys who broke into a hotel to get info from DNC offices.

He tried to cover-up the crime. He shouldn’t have.


Obama had to know the intel services were spying on Trump’s campaign. Wiretaps... informant/spies... unmaskings of Americans... just a whole panalopy of criminalities involving an opponent and his campaign during a presidential election.

He used the FBI, CIA, DoJ as tools like some 3rd World Banana Republic ****hole Dictator.

Obama hasn’t just slipped slightly below Nixon, he set a standard of criminality that is so low, absurd, and vile it will likely never be, and hopefully never be surpassed.

Where people once said “Nixonian” to call someone corrupt, we can now turn to calling such corruption Oba-manian... Barackistic.

I am reserving judgment on that until all the facts are in, if they ever are. Judge Jeannine Pirro on her program last night had several credible people commenting on that, and she kept insisting that "WHEN?????" will we know? All were of the opinion that the President would have known if an FBI 'mole' was inserted into a Presidential campaign. And all were agreed that Jake Clapper et al's presumption that the 'mole' was there to protect the candidate, President-elect, and then President is absurd on the face of it. The fact that the story was out that the Russians had hacked Hillary's e-mails certainly would have been justification to protect her more than President Trump needed protection. And certainly the President-elect must be advised of such a precaution, and nobody advised President-elect Trump.

We aren't going to know so long as A.G. Sessions is MIA and Rosenstein is running the Justice Dept. Rosenstein may have his own liabiity as to culpability in this whole mess, and to expect the FBI to investigate itself is just insane. And the I.G. can only do so much as he has no authority to indict or convene a grand jury and anybody who has already been fired or quit is beyond his reach. Congress too can only do so much and has no authority to indict. And if the DOJ won't do its job, and so far it has not, as much as I loath the concept of special counsels, I think we need one to investigate the DOJ and FBI in the past administration and this one.

 

[veritas1]

Explain what part of my post you found to be confusing. Be specific.

You said in Post #18 that Trump was using DOJ to persecute his political opponents. I simply reject that claim as false. Investigating someone is not persecution on its face. I'm sure all those supporting the Mueller investigation would agree.

 

[Cardinal]

You said in Post #18 that Trump was using DOJ to persecute his political opponents. I simply reject that claim as false. Investigating someone is not persecution on its face. I'm sure all those supporting the Mueller investigation would agree.

Okay, so you've distorted language in order to place yourself in the right. Whatever.

 

[vesper]

You are ahead of the game, though I don't blame you.

We had the first IG report that centered on McCabe's lying and leaking. Of course, nobody wants to talk about that.

Wait until the second IG report is released. This one will center on the Obama FBI/DOJ handling of the Hillary email investigation. The Obama-ites won't be able to ignore this one so easily. This one will be about more than just one person. It'll include Comey and Lynch along with others. And then, we'll get the IG report on the FISA abuse. The same cast of characters will be implicated...again...as well as others. And THEN, we'll get the IG report on Comey's leaking and lying.

During all this, Huber will start dropping indictments.

This is going to be an interesting year...if you are not part of the Obama administration. For those people, this year is going to be a nightmare.

Or still yet there is a possibility a Special Counsel will have to be appointed due to the DOJ/FBI not complying to oversight of Congress. Their redactions in what they have disclosed has been shown to be ridiculous at times that had nothing to do with National Security but everything to do with the department being embarrassed as a letter written this week by Senator Grassley exposed. And this week the House did submit a Resolution calling on the DOJ to appoint a second special counsel.

There's a great article at American Thinker this morning written by Clarice Feldman addressing the wrongdoing by the Obama FBI/DOJ and beyond and how Admiral Rogers is the hero in being the one who exposed it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/the_great_unmasking.html

 

[Amelia]

No evidence of that.

Republicans spent gobs of money trying to find some connection between Obama and the questionable practices at the IRS, and they couldn't do it.

Republicans looked under every stone hoping to find even a hint that Obama tried to exert influence improperly and they found nothing.

Trump openly tries to influence agencies in ways that Republicans accused Obama of doing in secret, and Republicans are ignoring Trump's blatant wrongdoing and still trying to find some proof that Obama did something wrong.

Republicans looked at the dirty rocks, tried to catch a glimpse below but were stymied at every turn.

Did you actually watch any of those hearings, see the obstruction, out and out lying by, ie, Director Koskinen, the brazen disregard of law and ethics, the thumb on the scale early, disingenuous pronouncements made by President slenderman?

Without grand jury and indictment power they, Republican legislators, could not get to the bottom of anything during those corrupt 8 years.

Trump is openly doing what Republicans tried to prove Obama and Hillary did. But Republicans don't care that Trump is doing it. Yet they're STILL trying to prove that Obama and Hillary did what they don't care that Trump is doing.

I was very frustrated by the whole Obama administration. I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote for Hillary. But Obama observed protocols. He had a wall around him which stopped him from doing the kind of interference which he's accused of doing over at the IRS, for example.

But Republicans still wasted millions trying to prove that Obama did breach those walls.

Trump is bulldozing those walls. He's taking a squat on those rocks. But Republicans don't care about his flagrant abuse and misuse of government agencies. Why did they care that Obama might have done it when they don't care that Trump is openly doing it?

 

[Irwin Corey]

I am reserving judgment on that until all the facts are in …

Fair enough.

Judge Jeannine Pirro on her program last night had several credible people

Judge Jeannine and credible, LOL!

The fact that the story was out that the Russians had hacked Hillary's e-mails certainly would have been justification to protect her more than President Trump needed protection.

Actually it's sensible that if the FBI felt the Russians were mounting an attack on the election that they would try to protect all of the principals involved.

And certainly the President-elect must be advised of such a precaution, and nobody advised President-elect Trump.

They absolutely did and when the did djt's reaction was one of defense that his campaign did not collude rather than one of "we need to get to the bottom of this and it needs to be stopped".

Obama had to know the intel services were investigating Trump’s campaign.

-zimmer

Taint necessarily so!

 

[zimmer]

Editor’s correction in red:

This thread is ridiculous to Leftists who cannot see the obvious, are desperate to change the subject, and are unwilling to believe their NYT and all the laughable holes in Obama’s officials claims.

Sharyl Attkisson on Spygate:
https://omny.fm/shows/the-larry-o-connor-show/sharyl-attkisson-on-the-larry-oconnor-show-wmal-2

8 signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump's campaign
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON,
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ntelligence-operation-deployed-against-trumps

 

[zimmer]

You don't know much of anything as far as I can tell. Why would you not understanding what you responded to be any different?

Fact: The Obama administration was evidenced by Republicans no less, to have not been directly connected to the IRS scandal. If you have a NYT article that claims he was, and can link it and quote it, please do. Otherwise, you're just being like all the other right wing CT conspiracy theorists.

His corrupt appointee... his corrupt IRS.

It’s not like she was head of the DMV... or the Dept. Of Snowflakes (which is pretty massive I hear due to the number of butt hurt Leftists).

 

[late]

Sharyl Attkisson on Spygate:
https://omny.fm/shows/the-larry-o-connor-show/sharyl-attkisson-on-the-larry-oconnor-show-wmal-2

8 signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump's campaign
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON,
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ntelligence-operation-deployed-against-trumps

If you are going to attempt humor, you should hire a comedy writer.

Just as an example, Page was being watched before Trump rode down the golden elevator in front of the audience he paid to be there.

Investigating potential crimes is what they are paid to do.

The real controversy here was that intel and the FBI were so slow to respond to what was going on.

Thrashing around blindly is not going to save Trump.