Reply With Quote
I'm not ok with spying on a campaign. More to follow.
You didn't answer the question:
Would you be OK with an administration's spying on that campaign?
I'm not ok with spying on a campaign. More to follow.
I'm not ok with spying on a campaign. More to follow.
Damn, not even to stop a terrorist attack?
OK....
whatever what? Are you disputing Mueller and the conclusions of his investigation? On what grounds?
And no, he's not the "chief law enforcement officer", whatever that means. The closest is "executor of laws" granted by the Cons ution through the use of veto power, he's also the Commander in Chief of the US, which gives him authority over troops.
Justice is administered by the judicial, not the executive branch. There's a Department of Justice under the executive tasked to bring about cases for prosecution to the judicial. If we don't even know how our government works, we have a bigger problem.
Bidden is not off limits of the judiciary. Arguably, not even off limits of the intelligence departments to bring a case in front of the judiciary, if there is one.
There's simply no scenario where the office of the president enters the picture, except for personal or political gain. Even more pathetic is referring to them as personal favors.
I'm possibly one of the biggest Biden detractors on this forum, but this has nothing to do with average Joe (regardless if he's eventually indicted for anything).
I don't get it Darrin, you're smarter than this. Is the bar so low with Trump we're not supposed to hold it to any standard whatsoever? I'm trying to understand what's the rock bottom here. I have zero doubts you'll be all up in arms if this was a Democrat president pulling this stunt.
And 5 years ago you probably weren't okay with a President of the United States pressuring the leader of another country to look into the family of his political rival. Or appointing his family members to powerful positions in the government and foreign relations. Or making money off of taxpayer-funded travel. Or refusing to show his tax returns. Or refusing to cooperate with judicial decisions. Or ordering his people to not comply with congressional subpoenas. Or pardoning people based exclusively on their loyalty. Or endorsing a Senate candidate with a history of pursuing underage girls. Or floating the idea of running for a third term.
Imagine yourself being cool with Barack Obama doing any of this. That's why you're a gutless hack, and why we all know your convictions stem exclusively from your bitterness towards liberals. You will always defend Donald Trump because it's better than siding with the libs.
Can't say I disagree with many of your points. However, I do think we need to get to the bottom of the 2016 election shenanigans.
There's never going to be an investigation into that because everyone knows there were no shenanigans, and revealing such would be less politically advantageous than stringing along gutless lackeys like you by just having President InfoWars continue to claim shenanigans.
But has no interest in getting to the bottom of current shenanigans.
Telling, tbh.
Accountability on one side only.
It'a ok if you're a Republican.
THEY DID IT FIRST!
I guess we'll find out.
Somehow, the governments of the US, Italy, Britain, Australia and the Ukraine conspired to prevent Trump's election without actually doing anything to affect the election.
This is the Trumpista theory.
Which is so much easier to believe than Russian theft of emails.
DarrinS is all in for the Ukraine conspiracy theory.
Not sure why he thinks that's an easier sell than Russiagate, tbh.
Mirror images.
It was an insurance policy.
The scheme was to let Trump win and undermine him afterward.
Also, to announce an investigation on HRC a week before the election, to cover their tracks.
More.to follow?
Show your hand. I showed mine.
That's the point, dumbass. We won't. They're not going to investigate it. They already have your vote. You and 30% of the population are easy pickins.
Or are you pining for a legal hail mary like the Russiagaters, Mr. DarrinS?
Notice how DarrinS completely avoids discussion of the Mueller Report in detail.
He's decided that Donald Trump and AG Barr's assessment is correct and trustworthy, and will continue to parrot "nothingburger" like a good useful idiot.
It's illogical to the core. Nothingburger requires we get to the bottom of it and the public is en led to know. Pick a lane.
Even some of the most sycophantic GOP congressional leaders feel constrained to admit Russia was fooling about in 2016, but Spurstalk conspira s feel obliged to die on that hill to deny it, for HIM.
What assessment?
It was no nothingburger, there was actual foreign intervention in our election, and there was a thorough investigation about it. People lied about it, and went to jail over those lies.
It doesn't mean this administration was involved, but there's nothing trivial about this. It's a serious matter.
Not to Darrin. He was told it was nothing except for the things that he's been told to think are serious matters.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions