• 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!

Only One Other President Has Acted This Desperate

KevinKohler said:
Right. So, anything and everything with anyone in, around, or aware of the Trump campaign.

I would wager that a similar investigation applied to ALL elected officials within our government would result in fully 70% being found guilty of something either illegal, unethical, or completely immoral.

Which, to be frank, I wish we could and would do. But no, we're just going to focus on the President, because some important folks don't like him.
Click to expand...

Your first para is overstated, IMHO.
I disagree firmly with your second para.
Trump has brought this on himself.
 
humbolt said:
Yet you purport to read minds all the time by jumping to unfounded conclusions. You aren't alone in that, either. It is possible to defend Trump from spurious allegations and not be enamored by the man. It's possible to support some of his policies and not be what is characterized here as a typical Trump supporter. It's also possible to be skeptical of the integrity of the Mueller investigation and other events not out of support for Trump himself, but rather to defend the integrity of our institutions of Justice.
Click to expand...

Ok, but it's a little more difficult once we go from the theoretical to real life. The FISA warrants, for example, if improperly obtained require that several layers of the FBI, the DoJ leadership, the clerks to the FISC judges and four separate FISC judges all conspired in an illegitimate and nakedly partisan attempt to surveil the "Trump campaign." So what is the effort to attack that process from every possible angle by Nunes and others except an attempt to undermine the integrity of everyone involved in those efforts, which include several different groups of individuals? Trump himself has been engaged in an 18 month attack on the integrity of out institutions of Justice.
 
cabse5 said:
I personally think that Meuller's investigation is state-sponsored fascism.
Who's gonna set up the go-fund-me pages for all these prosecuted by Mueller who will become destitute because of Mueller backed by the US gov't?
Click to expand...


It has been reported from the trial in Alexandria (Manafort) that Paul was in financial trouble when he became campaign chairman. He was looking to start his own “Go Fund Me” program after the election.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your first para is overstated, IMHO.
I disagree firmly with your second para.
Trump has brought this on himself.
Click to expand...

Maybe my first line is overstated, but it's not too far off from the truth.

As to the rest, this very thread is posted under "Political scandal of the day."


Need I say more?
 
Rexedgar said:
It has been reported from the trial in Alexandria (Manafort) that Paul was in financial trouble when he became campaign chairman. He was looking to start his own “Go Fund Me” program after the election.
Click to expand...

He'll definitely need one after Mueller and the gov't gets through with him.
I wonder if this makes those within the cross hairs of Mueller's investigation just a tad nervous? The fact that Mueller will ruin them financially?
 
cabse5 said:
He'll definitely need one after Mueller and the gov't gets through with him.
I wonder if this makes those within the cross hairs of Mueller's investigation just a tad nervous? The fact that Mueller will ruin them financially?
Click to expand...


 
Jack Hays said:
In this country you are free to espouse that opinion.
What part of the rule of law do you find to be fascist?
Click to expand...

I've been stressing the special counsel backed by the US gov't will ruin someone financially, guilty or not, and that fact makes the innocent seem to act guilty. The impending dread of financial ruin. The state-sponsored fascism of financial ruin guilty or no.
 
Jack Hays said:
Just another example of your customary partisan dishonesty. Please take note of this thread. It is hardly my fault that I find the Dems as blindly partisan as Trump's allies.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I don't read all your posts, but I don't mind when obvious partisans call me a dishonest partisan.

My point was faux neutrality, both sides!, is its own form of partisanship. We know for example that this Congress has effectively abandoned its role to oversee the executive branch, and the Nunes inquiry was nakedly partisan with the memo just amazingly one-sided, but the closest you got to accepting that that I've seen in a long debate with you was to accuse the Democrats of equal partisanship. I don't find that persuasive.

I'll quote from your article:

It’s hard to believe that, 45 years later, we may be in store for another damaging attack on the foundations of our democracy. Yet the cynical conduct of this president, his lawyers and a handful of congressional Republicans is frightening to me and should be to every citizen of this country. We are not playing just another Washington political game; there is much more at stake.
Click to expand...

The faux neutrality, "both sides!!" stuff is treating what's happening as just another political game, IMO, with taking no particular side having the same effect as picking sides approving of the President's conduct.
 
cabse5 said:
I've been stressing the special counsel backed by the US gov't will ruin someone financially, guilty or not, and that fact makes the innocent seem to act guilty. The impending dread of financial ruin. The state-sponsored fascism of financial ruin guilty or no.
Click to expand...

I doubt financial ruin is a concern for DJT.
 
JasperL said:
Admittedly I don't read all your posts, but I don't mind when obvious partisans call me a dishonest partisan.

My point was faux neutrality, both sides!, is its own form of partisanship. We know for example that this Congress has effectively abandoned its role to oversee the executive branch, and the Nunes inquiry was nakedly partisan with the memo just amazingly one-sided, but the closest you got to accepting that that I've seen in a long debate with you was to accuse the Democrats of equal partisanship. I don't find that persuasive.

I'll quote from your article:



The faux neutrality, "both sides!!" stuff is treating what's happening as just another political game, IMO, with taking no particular side having the same effect as picking sides approving of the President's conduct.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're seeing faux neutrality. I agree with Ruckelshaus.
I don't think Nunes was any more partisan than Schiff, and it still looks like the FBI went forward on the basis of false confirmation. We discussed that at some length. I don't regard that as conspiratorial, merely sloppy.
Dems on the Senate intelligence oversight committee have been excellent.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not sure where you're seeing faux neutrality. I agree with Ruckelshaus.
I don't think Nunes was any more partisan than Schiff, and it still looks like the FBI went forward on the basis of false confirmation. We discussed that at some length. I don't regard that as conspiratorial, merely sloppy.
Click to expand...

Right, both sides! Thanks for proving the point nicely. Nunes is clearly running interference for Trump, drafted the memo behind closed doors with no input from Democrats, but Schiff is just as partisan for pointing that out and pushing back against an intelligence committee Chair that operated as if the Democrats didn't exist. And being "merely sloppy" is what happens when partisan hacks throw together a memo to advance a cause instead of inform the public.

BTW, the "false confirmation" was in a section about Page's denials - we know that now, and you're still not recognizing it.

Dems on the Senate intelligence oversight committee have been excellent.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's because the Senate Republicans aren't acting like partisan hacks, and have made an effort at honest inquiry, something we can't say about Nunes' committee.

BTW, who do you think the author is referring to if not Nunes in the section I quoted? Another example is the Senate shared the texts with Sen. Warren with the House intelligence committee and they're published just 2 or 3 days later by Fox News.
 
I’m thinking it was a slow day over at the climate forum........:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

[h=3]investigation - Department of Justice[/h]https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download



Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States. Department of Justice. (b). The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ...
Click to expand...

I feel like this should be posted weekly. Everybody wants to run with the collusion narrative, but that has never been the limit of this investigation.
 
JasperL said:
Right, both sides! Thanks for proving the point nicely. Nunes is clearly running interference for Trump, drafted the memo behind closed doors with no input from Democrats, but Schiff is just as partisan for pointing that out and pushing back against an intelligence committee Chair that operated as if the Democrats didn't exist. And being "merely sloppy" is what happens when partisan hacks throw together a memo to advance a cause instead of inform the public.

BTW, the "false confirmation" was in a section about Page's denials - we know that now, and you're still not recognizing it.



Perhaps that's because the Senate Republicans aren't acting like partisan hacks, and have made an effort at honest inquiry, something we can't say about Nunes' committee.

BTW, who do you think the author is referring to if not Nunes in the section I quoted? Another example is the Senate shared the texts with Sen. Warren with the House intelligence committee and they're published just 2 or 3 days later by Fox News.
Click to expand...

I happily plead guilty to calling out both sides.
Nunes is probably who Ruckelshaus referred to, and rightfully so. Schiff was just as partisan, but without power.
It doesn't matter whether the false confirmation was in a section about Page or the Man in the Moon, it was still sloppy work by the FBI.
 
Jack Hays said:
I happily plead guilty to calling out both sides.
Nunes is probably who Ruckelshaus referred to, and rightfully so. Schiff was just as partisan, but without power.
It doesn't matter whether the false confirmation was in a section about Page or the Man in the Moon, it was still sloppy work by the FBI.
Click to expand...

First of all, blaming "both sides!!" is to place no actual blame at all.

Case in point - "Rightfully so," but you've never called him out that I've seen, and are defending his crap memo even now and how he ran the committee even now. He's the Chair, so it was Nunes, and not Schiff, who made the inquiry nakedly partisan starting with his "midnight run" and continued it through and including the memo, the final report, and the investigation itself when Democratic members were treated as if they weren't even on the committee, excluded from drafting or input into drafting any of the reports put out by the committee. Saying Schiff had no power is actually incredibly significant and damning because it puts the blame where it belongs on the Chair, which you just cannot do.

BTW, nice dodge on the Yahoo article. It does in fact matter how it was used, and Nunes and you argued it was used to confirm Steele, but it wasn't, as we know, so you moved the goal posts to "sloppy work." Nunes' memo misstated the purpose, Schiff's didn't, but "both sides!!!" because being accurate and "partisan" is the same as being intentionally misleading (aka lying) and "partisan," apparently. Same thing with the other claim by Nunes that the political origins weren't disclosed (they were - to "discredit" Trump's campaign) and the Nunes memo claim that the FBI hid that they paid Steele, which was also disclosed in the FISA warrant.

So, the Nunes memo was almost breathtakingly misleading on nearly all the supposedly scandalous claims, and it was drafted entirely by the GOP members with no opportunity for Democrats or the FBI and DoJ to weigh in on the charges, but Both Sides!!
 
JasperL said:
First of all, blaming "both sides!!" is to place no actual blame at all.

Case in point - "Rightfully so," but you've never called him out that I've seen, and are defending his crap memo even now and how he ran the committee even now. He's the Chair, so it was Nunes, and not Schiff, who made the inquiry nakedly partisan starting with his "midnight run" and continued it through and including the memo, the final report, and the investigation itself when Democratic members were treated as if they weren't even on the committee, excluded from drafting or input into drafting any of the reports put out by the committee. Saying Schiff had no power is actually incredibly significant and damning because it puts the blame where it belongs on the Chair, which you just cannot do.

BTW, nice dodge on the Yahoo article. It does in fact matter how it was used, and Nunes and you argued it was used to confirm Steele, but it wasn't, as we know, so you moved the goal posts to "sloppy work." Nunes' memo misstated the purpose, Schiff's didn't, but "both sides!!!" because being accurate and "partisan" is the same as being intentionally misleading (aka lying) and "partisan," apparently. Same thing with the other claim by Nunes that the political origins weren't disclosed (they were - to "discredit" Trump's campaign) and the Nunes memo claim that the FBI hid that they paid Steele, which was also disclosed in the FISA warrant.

So, the Nunes memo was almost breathtakingly misleading on nearly all the supposedly scandalous claims, and it was drafted entirely by the GOP members with no opportunity for Democrats or the FBI and DoJ to weigh in on the charges, but Both Sides!!
Click to expand...

The Nunes memo was a microscopically minor part of the situation, so far in the rear view mirror it's really no longer visible. And of course the Yahoo article was used to confirm Steele, regardless of its place in the FBI presentation. I've said from the beginning the false confirmation was sloppy work. No goalposts moved.

Schiff's partisan approach earned the treatment Nunes accorded him.

I'm not sure what your problem is.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Nunes memo was a microscopically minor part of the situation, so far in the rear view mirror it's really no longer visible. And of course the Yahoo article was used to confirm Steele, regardless of its place in the FBI presentation. I've said from the beginning the false confirmation was sloppy work. No goalposts moved.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is contradicted by the facts, which is the released FISA warrants clearly put the context of the Yahoo article in a section entirely separate from the evidence of Page's coordination with Russia. Schiff was correct - Page wrote a letter to the FBI denying the claims in the Yahoo article. You can't know what he denied doing without also outlining the charges in the Yahoo article. The purpose of the Yahoo article is therefore clear - to put in the record Page's denials, which is why it was in a section called, paraphrased, "Page's denials." That you can't recognize that now is hilariously proving my point. You're supposedly experienced in this stuff and are gaslighting.

And the FISA request said the point was to "discredit" Trump's campaign

And the FISA warrant disclosed the payments to Steele by FBI, and the FBI's use of him as a source.

0 for 3 for Nunes, but Schiff calling out the lies as lies is both sides!!

Schiff's partisan approach earned the treatment Nunes accorded him.

I'm not sure what your problem is.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course!
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is the view of a public figure whose service I have greatly admired. He speaks from experience and offers wise words.





Only one other president has ever acted this desperate

By William D. Ruckelshaus

William D. Ruckelshaus served as acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as deputy attorney general in 1973. He was also administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1973 and 1983 to 1985.

President Trump is acting with a desperation I’ve seen only once before in Washington: 45 years ago when President Richard M. Nixon ordered the firing of special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Nixon was fixated on ending the Watergate investigation, just as Trump wants to shut down the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
A lesson for the president from history: It turned out badly for Nixon. Not only could he not derail the investigation, but also, 10 months later, he was forced to resign the presidency.
In fact, in some ways, Trump is conducting himself more frantically than Nixon, all the while protesting his innocence. Nixon fought to the end because he knew that what was on the tape recordings that the prosecutor wanted would incriminate him. We don’t know what Trump is hiding, if anything. But if he is innocent of any wrongdoing, why not let Robert S. Mueller III do his job and prove it? . . . .
Click to expand...

Since your article is behind a paywall, I can't read any more than the part you posted.

I have to dismiss this talking potato head.

He makes this statement..."In fact, in some ways, Trump is conducting himself more frantically than Nixon, all the while protesting his innocence."...but he doesn't explain what Trump is doing that is frantic. He just says that and he expects me to believe him? I don't think so. He then goes on, having falsely establishing that point, to insinuate...without any evidence...that Trump is hiding something. The end of the quote implies that Trump is not letting Mueller do his job.

1. I don't see Trump being frantic about anything.

2. I have no reason to believe Trump is hiding anything.

3. I haven't seen Trump do anything to prevent Mueller doing his job.

I have to say, Jack Hays, if you let this writer tell you what to think, you are doing yourself a disservice.
 
JasperL said:
Your assertion is contradicted by the facts, which is the released FISA warrants clearly put the context of the Yahoo article in a section entirely separate from the evidence of Page's coordination with Russia. Schiff was correct - Page wrote a letter to the FBI denying the claims in the Yahoo article. You can't know what he denied doing without also outlining the charges in the Yahoo article. The purpose of the Yahoo article is therefore clear - to put in the record Page's denials, which is why it was in a section called, paraphrased, "Page's denials." That you can't recognize that now is hilariously proving my point. You're supposedly experienced in this stuff and are gaslighting.

And the FISA request said the point was to "discredit" Trump's campaign

And the FISA warrant disclosed the payments to Steele by FBI, and the FBI's use of him as a source.

0 for 3 for Nunes, but Schiff calling out the lies as lies is both sides!!



Yes, of course!
Click to expand...

Yes, the Yahoo article was used to enumerate Page's denials, but it would not have mattered if the FBI did not believe the article corroborated Steele.
 
Mycroft said:
Since your article is behind a paywall, I can't read any more than the part you posted.

I have to dismiss this talking potato head.

He makes this statement..."In fact, in some ways, Trump is conducting himself more frantically than Nixon, all the while protesting his innocence."...but he doesn't explain what Trump is doing that is frantic. He just says that and he expects me to believe him? I don't think so. He then goes on, having falsely establishing that point, to insinuate...without any evidence...that Trump is hiding something. The end of the quote implies that Trump is not letting Mueller do his job.

1. I don't see Trump being frantic about anything.

2. I have no reason to believe Trump is hiding anything.

3. I haven't seen Trump do anything to prevent Mueller doing his job.

I have to say, Jack Hays, if you let this writer tell you what to think, you are doing yourself a disservice.
Click to expand...

William Ruckelshaus is one of the finest men to share this Earth during my lifetime. I'll side with him against you 100 times out of 100.
 

​
mail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom