Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal

[Helix]

Let me help out the trump supporters. What guilt?

so what, but the black guy.

 

[ecofarm]

so what, but the black guy.

Black, Muslim and not American, and black.

 

[Helix]

Black, Muslim and not American, and black.

we should also point out that he is black, but not like a racist would. in fact, if you imply racism in any way, i'm horribly offended.

 

[ecofarm]

we should also point out that he is black, but not like a racist would. in fact, if you imply racism in any way, i'm horribly offended.

He wrote, "typical white woman of the times". Now white people are oppressed. Now white people suffer injustice, as a whole, at the hands of minorities. And we don't know if we shall overcome. So there's that.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We saw that with Fast & Furious and the

They did investigate Fast & Furious

"On September 19, 2012,[119] the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz publicly released a 471-page report[1] detailing the results of the Justice Department's own internal investigations. The Inspector General's report, which had access to evidence and interviews with witnesses not permitted in previous Congressional reports, recommended 14 federal officials for disciplinary action, ranging from ATF agents to federal prosecutors involved in the Fast and Furious operation.[119] It found "no evidence" that Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious before early 2011.[120] It found no evidence that previous Attorneys General had been advised about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.[1]"

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia

IRS scandal.

They did investigate the IRS scandal:

"In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal. The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature."

IRS targeting controversy - Wikipedia

Obama certainly wasn't going to call for an investigation of the Hillary Foundation at all.

They did conduct investigations into the Clinton Foundation:

"FBI investigations - In October 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that four field offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation—in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, and Little Rock, Ark. -- had been collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to determine whether "there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling." According to the WSJ article, FBI officials presented their findings to the Justice Department in February 2016, but "the meeting didn't go well". Justice Department officials felt the cases were weak and saw little reason to continue the investigations. However, the New York FBI field office continued to pursue the matter, leading to reports that some New York agents were feuding with the Justice Department and basing their investigation in part on media accounts[60] and in particular on the book Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer, a senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News. In a reported separate investigation, the Washington field office had been investigating Terry McAuliffe[when?] before he became a board member of the Clinton Foundation."

Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy - Wikipedia

They hid everything.

See above.

We never would have even heard about Hillary's email mess if Judicial Watch hadn't found out about it. When that happened, Obama was FORCED to investigate...and we saw what good that did.

This isn't true either.

The IG "of the intelligence community and State Department [made] a security referral for an investigation regarding the fact that 'classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.'"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/

The fact the FBI could not find enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clinton violated the law doesn't mean they didn't do a good job.

When Congressional oversight attempted to look into the Obama corruption, the blatant delay, opposition and outright lies stopped them every time.

This isn't true with respect to the Fast & Furious. The DOJ was forced by a judge to comply with the subpoenas.

Heck, Brennan lied to Congress and what was done? Nothing. Because the Obama DOJ refused to deal with it.

You're not talking about the alleged lie of May 2017, the lie Trump's DOJ refused to deal with, are you?

There was a distinct lack of pressure by the media.

None of what I mentioned was "CT crap". It was real. It happened. And it was either ignored or suppressed.

Your characterization of these events is crap, that's for sure.

Graft and corruption happened throughout the eight years Obama was President. That's a fact, whether you are uncomfortable admitting it or not.

The truth is this: Republicans and Trump supporters could never get over the fact that a Black man was their leader.

 

[TomFitz]

"graft"??? "corruption"???

So...you are talking about the Obama administration, right?

Biden helping out his son, Hillary's Foundation, Kerry and HIS son...graft at its finest.

Selling weapons to drug cartels...using the IRS against political opponents...using the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department to target a presidential candidate...corruption at its finest.

The list goes on...

No, I’m taking about Trump.

Most of the stuff you list is patent nonsense.

But perhaps you can tell us about Wilbur Ross, Ryan Zinke, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, Parmas and his buddy,

And this is what we know about,

The Trump Administration has been for sale from top to bottom, and the entire planet knows it.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If YOU dispute my defense, then it's now your turn to provide your own evidence...instead of crying about me.

So have at it...if you want.

W_Heisenberg just cleaned your clock, dude.

We understand you cannot defend Trump's behavior or that of his inner circle, but spouting lies about previous administrations doesn't work, either.

 

[upsideguy]

There is nothing to defend. The claims of graft and corruption...which is what I was responding to...don't exist in regard to Trump.

But they do exist in regard to Obama and his ilk. That's why I mentioned their graft and collusion. It wasn't deflection. It was assigning the crimes to the proper people and administration.

I did defend my assertion. If YOU dispute my defense, then it's now your turn to provide your own evidence...instead of crying about me.

So have at it...if you want.

Yes, there is everything to defend.... your claim, which was....

Nonsense.

The reason the Obama stuff wasn't investigated is three-fold:

1. There is no way the Obama administration would seriously investigate themselves. We saw that with Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. And hell...Obama certainly wasn't going to call for an investigation of the Hillary Foundation at all. Nor any of the other "non-existent scandals. They hid everything. We never would have even heard about Hillary's email mess if Judicial Watch hadn't found out about it. When that happened, Obama was FORCED to investigate...and we saw what good that did.

2. When Congressional oversight attempted to look into the Obama corruption, the blatant delay, opposition and outright lies stopped them every time. Heck, Brennan lied to Congress and what was done? Nothing. Because the Obama DOJ refused to deal with it.

3. There was a distinct lack of pressure by the media.

None of what I mentioned was "CT crap". It was real. It happened. And it was either ignored or suppressed.

Graft and corruption happened throughout the eight years Obama was President. That's a fact, whether you are uncomfortable admitting it or not.

You made many charges that you have entered here as fact. They are not. I asked you to show evidence of those, or withdraw the assertion. You failed to do. Why? I know why, because you can not. There is no substantive credible evidence of any of the things you asserted.

You make a claim (which you did above), you have the burden proof. You can not meet the burden of proof, we get to consider the claim to be invalid. Of course, should you make a feeble attempt to actually provide proof, I will rebut and rip your claim to shreds, as I do know that everyone of those things you cite are not true. They are baked together and sold to the gullible right on fact-free political smut sites. They can not hold up to the truth (and you know that, which why you won't defend those points)

So, when you make a reasonable argument to defend your assertions of corruption in the Obama administration, then I will rip it to shreds.... but you have made no such argument. All you made no such argument thus far, thus showing us all that it is NOT true.

You might want to brush up on debate theory....

What Does "Burden of Proof" Mean in a Civil Trial? | Justia