Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, downzy said:

Nixon didn't order the break-in of the DNC at Watergate.  He was going to be impeached and removed from office for covering it up and abusing his power as President to do so.

Last part is true. But it is very likely that he ordered it, Why would he want to cover it up if he didn't order it? But the truth is we will likely never know. Because the truth died with Nixon  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden challenged an Iowa voter to a push-up contest at one of his rally... the man called him out on Ukraine and he went berserk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden challenged an Iowa voter to a push-up contest at one of his rally... the man called him out on Ukraine and he went berserk!

Does Biden utter the word "fat" and then think better of it? 2:28-2:31-ish?

Serious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, soon said:

Does Biden utter the word "fat" and then think better of it? 2:28-2:31-ish?

Serious question.

His campaign claims he said "look, facts", which makes more sense but it does sound like he says "look, fat" lol

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Last part is true. But it is very likely that he ordered it, Why would he want to cover it up if he didn't order it? But the truth is we will likely never know. Because the truth died with Nixon 

Nixon charged Gordon L. Liddy to run his plumber team for the upcoming '72 election, but it's unlikely he was aware exactly what they were up to.  I have no doubt Nixon was aware that his team was likely up to some sandy shit, but there's little evidence knew of the operation at the Watergate hotel either prior or during.  The operation to wiretap the DNC headquarters and photograph documents was run by Liddy himself and approved by then AG John Mitchell.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And then you got people like me who think the US shouldn't even be involved with Ukraine in the first place! 

I'm glad you made this point because its a symptom of a mistake they are making in these hearings - There is too much about Ukraine/Russia. Every witness thus far has extolled the virtues of arming Ukraine and Democratic congresspersons have repeatedly said that its vital to our national security. All of that is irrelevant to the issue of Trump attempting to leverage said "aid" for an investigation into Biden and it creates two big issues:

1. It causes/allows people to get lost in the weeds and argue against the policy of arming Ukraine in the first place.

2. It digs the hole deeper for Democrats on Russia and locks them into a very hawkish position that is antithetical to what the liberal position should be.

Pelosi added to it with a statement she made today - she started out making a cognizant point about how this isn't about Ukraine only to veer off and say this is about Russia :facepalm:

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jakey Styley said:

His campaign claims he said "look, facts", which makes more sense but it does sound like he says "look, fat" lol

Haha, Im still hearing "fat" and that wouldnt be so out of step with the rest of his display in that exchange imo. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not from USA, and sometimes find the US political system hard to understand. That being said, what's the likely outcome with Trump impeachment proceedings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jimisbatman said:

Not from USA, and sometimes find the US political system hard to understand. That being said, what's the likely outcome with Trump impeachment proceedings? 

Nothing  Because his party controls the  Senate and we all move on with our lives and decide whether or not to re-elect him next year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Nothing  Because his party controls the  Senate and we all move on with our lives and decide whether or not to re-elect him next year 

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 6:40 PM, downzy said:

Nixon didn't order the break-in of the DNC at Watergate.  He was going to be impeached and removed from office for covering it up and abusing his power as President to do so.

It was a lot more than a mere coverup of the break in at Watergate. Nixon was so paranoid. Like Axl, he thought everyone was out ta get him. So he created his own parallel espionage universe. He didn't order the break in. But Nixon's close aides did it.  If this wasn't bad enough. Nixon spent money from his reelection campaign in this "spy agency" of his own creation. And no other than his A.G. John Mitchell was in charged of the distribution of the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, soon said:

Even Hunter Biden Admits His Work in Ukraine Was a Mistake. Why Can’t His Father Say That?

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/07/joe-biden-iowa-voter-hunter-damn-liar/

Someone needs to tell Joe that just because a crime wasn't committed doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

This is how he has responded to anyone who has had an issue with him. He told someone who had a issue with Obama era immigration enforcement practices to 'Vote for Trump"  yes, seriously. I'm wondering where this folksy charm everyone says he has is at. I'm optimistic Trump will be a one-term president, but having Joe as the nominee is really testing it. I can't imagine there is a soul who would be optimistic about a Biden presidency.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

I'm wondering where this folksy charm everyone says he has is at.

Likewise, there seems to be no absence of "Malarky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-11-20 at 3:06 PM, Silent Jay said:

The Horowitz probe will likely prove all FISA warrants were fraudulent and that normal spying protocols were abrogated.

Take in mind that Horowitz is a democrat and a former Obama appointee.

The Horowitz probe builds into the Durham probe, a man described as apolitical (led probes on behalf of Democratic AG Janet Reno and Eric Holder).

Apparently the Horowitz probe did not prove all FISA warrants were fraudulent.  There were serious issues with the Carter Page warrant, but nothing that justifies anything Trump supporters and QAnon nutjobs have claimed in the past.  

https://www.thedailybeast.com/justice-department-inspector-general-finds-serious-performance-failures-in-fbis-carter-page-probe?ref=home

"The report also said that the inspector found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced FBI decisions to open investigations of Trump campaign associates, to use confidential sources interact with them, and to seek authority to surveil Page"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too quick with the conclusions.

Barr and Durham both disagree with some of the findings of the report. They know this because their investigation is broader in scope than the IG report. Obviously it goes beyond the FBI and DOJ.

Also, Barr and Durham are able to prosecute and to bring charges.

 

ELXcgYkU0AAm-q4?format=jpg&name=small

AG Barr :

Quote

 

"The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken," Barr said in a statement responding to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 476-page report released on Monday.

"It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory," Barr continued. "Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-fisa-report-shows-fbi-had-insufficient-evidence-to-justify-steps-taken-in-russia-investigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

 

The balls of this guy...

But you know what's odd?

Go to the IG report :

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Search for "Comey", no result.

Search "Corney", 149 results.

Food for thought.

Thought isn’t something your lot are particularly renowned for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

Way too quick with the conclusions.

Not really.  

You're previous post claimed that the IG's report would demonstrate that the investigation into Trump was politically driven and that it would demonstrate illegality towards all visas obtained through the FISA courts.  

None of that happened.

As for Barr's assessment, you'll have to excuse me if I don't hold much faith in his ability to summarize report findings following his hatchet job on the Mueller report.  The man has as much credibility on the matter as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

As for Durham, I'll have to withhold judgement until his report is released.

We already know from reporting that Durham could not validate the Trump world conspiracy that Joseph Milfurd was a CIA or FBI plant to entrap Trump campaign officials.  I'm sure there are some disagreement around the edges but we'll have to see what Durham says and the veracity of his reports to really gauge how much sunlight is between the two investigators.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×