The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on September 22, 2017, 11:14:38 am
-
Obama’s Watergate
The American Spectator, Sep 22, 2017, Daniel J. Flynn
Vladimir Putin did not hack the election. Barack Obama did.
Donald Trump said earlier this year that the Obama Administration wiretapped his campaign. “Like I’d want to hear more from that fool?” President Obama scoffed.
But CNN reported on Monday, “US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election…. The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.”
The network labeled their story an exclusive. But, in fact, Breitbart, radio host Mark Levin, the realDonaldTrump Twitter account, and numerous other sources reported the wiretapping more than six months ago.
<snip>
The all-smoke-no-fire Russia investigation looks increasingly like a smoke screen aimed to put out a very different fire. Rather than an investigation into malfeasance by the Trump campaign, does the Robert Mueller inquiry serve as a clean-up operation to justify Obama administration malfeasance? The bugging of the opposition party’s presidential campaign, at least when done by Republicans, ranks not only as criminal but as the biggest political scandal in American history.
Read more: https://spectator.org/obamas-watergate/
-
It is mind-boggling to me that Trump is the one under investigation. Obama's corrupt State Department appears to still be running the show and nobody appears to give a damn.
-
"Watergate"? This should make Watergate look like a nothing.
-
Obama's corrupt State Department appears to still be running the show and nobody appears to give a damn.
Foggy Bottom is the swamp that must be cleared - completely! What was true when GWB took office is true today: the previous Dem administration was utterly corrupt and politically treasonous, and the damage they have done to this nation is immeasurable.
-
Obama’s Spy Scandal? James Clapper Claims FISA Wiretap Of Paul Manafort Conducted Without His Knowledge
by Larry O'Connor | 7:52 am, September 21st, 2017
Earlier this week CNN reported what radio talk show host (and former Justice Department official) Mark Levin revealed in March, that secret FISA court orders had been implemented during the Obama Administration to wire tap Paul Manafort. Mediaite then pointed out that the former Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, James Clapper, had unequivocally denied the existence of any such FISA wiretap during an interview on Meet the Press: CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?
JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.
TODD: You would be told this?
CLAPPER: I would know that.
TODD: If there was a FISA court order–
CLAPPER: Yes.
TODD: –on something like this.
CLAPPER: Something like this, absolutely.
TODD: And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?
CLAPPER: I can deny it.
Please pay careful attention to the words used in the above exchange. Chuck Todd lays out a very specific scenario. If the FBI had a FISA order for surveillance of a member (or members) of the Trump campaign team, would James Clapper know about it? Clapper stated with no ambiguity that he would. He went on to firmly and uncategorically deny it. ...
More at Mediaite (https://www.mediaite.com/online/obamas-domestic-spy-scandal-james-clapper-claims-fisa-wiretap-of-paul-manafort-conducted-without-his-knowledge/)
-
Foggy Bottom is the swamp that must be cleared - completely! What was true when GWB took office is true today: the previous Dem administration was utterly corrupt and politically treasonous, and the damage they have done to this nation is immeasurable.
@mountaineer, did you read that article by Daniel Greenfield: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281932.msg1456957.html#msg1456957?
Good explanation of what we are seeing.
-
Obama’s Watergate
The all-smoke-no-fire Russia investigation looks increasingly like a smoke screen aimed to put out a very different fire. Rather than an investigation into malfeasance by the Trump campaign, does the Robert Mueller inquiry serve as a clean-up operation to justify Obama administration malfeasance? The bugging of the opposition party’s presidential campaign, at least when done by Republicans, ranks not only as criminal but as the biggest political scandal in American history.
Read more: https://spectator.org/obamas-watergate/
Mueller is dirty, he and Comey have been covering for the Clintons for years. As anyone see our AG Jeff Sessions?
-
Mueller is dirty, he and Comey have been covering for the Clintons for years. As anyone see our AG Jeff Sessions?
Sessions is as ill-informed and misguided here as he was in enthusiastically endorsing Eric Holder as AG as someone who would not be political.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for example, said he was sure that Mr. Holder would be “a responsible legal officer and not a politician.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03holder.html?mcubz=1
-
Of course, Obama didn’t have Trump’s “wires tapped”, but rather Paul Manafort was wiretapped as part of a FISA warrant issued by a US Judge as requested by the Department of Justice.
Here’s what Trump actually tweeted:
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
This is obviously untrue as Trump’s wires weren’t tapped, Manafort’s were. In fact, Trump’s own DOJ confirmed this tweet was false earlier this month when they acknowledged as much:
“The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday evening that it has no evidence to support President Donald Trump's assertion in March that his predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped the phones in Trump Tower before last year's election.
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.”
I don’t think this “scandal” will be anything near Watergate-levels until impeachment proceedings are held (which I think is unlikely).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/02/politics/justice-department-trump-tower-wiretap/index.html
-
Obamagate makes Watergate look like Sunday School by comparison and not one damned thing will be done about it!
-
Susan Rice unmasked 260 people. Bolton unmasked 10 people.
Of course the line will be Obama don't know; Hillary don't know. Which is BS.
Gingrich discussed this on Hannity yesterday, and said Congress should have Rice under oath before committees.
-
@mountaineer, did you read that article by Daniel Greenfield: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281932.msg1456957.html#msg1456957?
Good explanation of what we are seeing.
Wow, thanks for that. Who would have thought we'd come to this?
-
Wow, thanks for that. Who would have thought we'd come to this?
Particularly shocking when it's laid out that clearly, isn't it?
-
Of course, Obama didn’t have Trump’s “wires tapped”, but rather Paul Manafort was wiretapped as part of a FISA warrant issued by a US Judge as requested by the Department of Justice.
Here’s what Trump actually tweeted:
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
This is obviously untrue as Trump’s wires weren’t tapped, Manafort’s were. In fact, Trump’s own DOJ confirmed this tweet was false earlier this month when they acknowledged as much:
“The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday evening that it has no evidence to support President Donald Trump's assertion in March that his predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped the phones in Trump Tower before last year's election.
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.”
I don’t think this “scandal” will be anything near Watergate-levels until impeachment proceedings are held (which I think is unlikely).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/02/politics/justice-department-trump-tower-wiretap/index.html
I though Manafort lived in Trump Tower?
If so, it's probable that "Trump's" wires were tapped, technically, since he owns them.
-
I though Manafort lived in Trump Tower?
If so, it's probable that "Trump's" wires were tapped, technically, since he owns them.
Manafort's home where the search warrant was conducted was in Virginia. Even so, I seriously doubt that Trump "owns" the phones and their associated lines in every residence in Trump Tower.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-executed-search-warrant-paul-manaforts-home-russia/story?id=49112676
-
Manafort's home where the search warrant was conducted was in Virginia. Even so, I seriously doubt that Trump "owns" the phones and their associated lines in every residence in Trump Tower.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-executed-search-warrant-paul-manaforts-home-russia/story?id=49112676
But, we do know that Manafort spoke regularly and frequently to Trump, hence Trump's communications would have also been captured.
-
But, we do know that Manafort spoke regularly and frequently to Trump, hence Trump's communications would have also been captured.
I personally don't believe that Trump was referring to him being caught up incidentally in a legal, court-issued warrant against someone else when he tweeted:
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
If that is indeed what he was referring to, it's incredibly misleading to the American public IMO.
-
I personally don't believe that Trump was referring to him being caught up incidentally in a legal, court-issued warrant against someone else when he tweeted:
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
If that is indeed what he was referring to, it's incredibly misleading to the American public IMO.
Not sure why you say that. It appears the intent was indeed to capture Trump communications.
-
Not sure why you say that. It appears the intent was indeed to capture Trump communications.
Any yet, even Trump’s own Justice Department have stated they can’t find records to support his “wire tapping” tweet. From Reply #8:
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.”
I expect that they can’t find records to support them because Trump’s wires weren’t tapped. Manafort’s were. I think the pretzel that Trump’s staff and his supporters twist themselves into in an attempt to defend his nonsensical, false, and misleading statements humiliate both themselves and the American people.
-
Any yet, even Trump’s own Justice Department have stated they can’t find records to support his “wire tapping” tweet. From Reply #8:
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.”
I expect that they can’t find records to support them because Trump’s wires weren’t tapped. Manafort’s were. I think the pretzel that Trump’s staff and his supporters twist themselves into in an attempt to defend his nonsensical, false, and misleading statements humiliate both themselves and the American people.
Odd argument you are making. Manafort's "wires" were tapped in order to capture Trump. I understand that you don't like Trump, but that doesn't change the basic facts.
-
Odd argument you are making. Manafort's "wires" were tapped in order to capture Trump. I understand that you don't like Trump, but that doesn't change the basic facts.
I've seen no evidence that the "intent" of the Manafort's wiretaps were to explictly capture Trump. You keep saying that, but where's the evidence that supports the assertion?
Relative to Trump, I try to be objective, and I rely on facts, data, evidence, and truth. I praise him when I think he deserves praise (e.g., Gorsuch, deregulations, hurricane support) and criticize him when I think he deserves criticism (e.g., broken promises on major campaign promises like proposing a Constitutional Amendment on term limits, “Lock her up”, and Mexico paying for the wall). I wish everyone tried to be objective.
-
I've seen no evidence that the "intent" of the Manafort's wiretaps were to explictly capture Trump. You keep saying that, but where's the evidence that supports the assertion?
Relative to Trump, I try to be objective, and I rely on facts, data, evidence, and truth. I praise him when I think he deserves praise (e.g., Gorsuch, deregulations, hurricane support) and criticize him when I think he deserves criticism (e.g., broken promises on major campaign promises like proposing a Constitutional Amendment on term limits, “Lock her up”, and Mexico paying for the wall). I wish everyone tried to be objective.
Tell you what - read this excellent piece by Greenfield and then we can discuss this: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281932.msg1456957.html#msg1456957?
I'll find some more information for you when I get a minute.
-
Tell you what - read this excellent piece by Greenfield and then we can discuss this: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281932.msg1456957.html#msg1456957?
I'll find some more information for you when I get a minute.
I read it earlier. Lots of assertions about "crimes", "criminal motives", and attempts to sow outrage by talking about such things as the "Obama espionage operation". Even the article notes that we don't everything:
"When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team."
The bold above is key IMO: if we ever discover the whole truth, and we are "likely". Fine, Greenfield is entitled to his opinion but that's all that is: opinion. Look, I'd love to "Lock her up". I'd love even more to "Lock him up" (Obama). I'm afraid that thinking Obama or someone from his Administration is going to be locked up over a legally issued FISA warrant is just kooky-talk. At least IMO.
-
I read it earlier. Lots of assertions about "crimes", "criminal motives", and attempts to sow outrage by talking about such things as the "Obama espionage operation". Even the article notes that we don't everything:
"When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team."
The bold above is key IMO: if we ever discover the whole truth, and we are "likely". Fine, Greenfield is entitled to his opinion but that's all that is: opinion. Look, I'd love to "Lock her up". I'd love even more to "Lock him up" (Obama). I'm afraid that thinking Obama or someone from his Administration is going to be locked up over a legally issued FISA warrant is just kooky-talk. At least IMO.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
That's well and good if there's actual EVIDENCE that it's a cigar. In this particular case, we have a bunch of speculation, hope, and desire that IF we ever find out the "whole truth" Greenfield feels "we will likely discover" Obama used "legal pretexts to spy on the Trump's team". When that day comes, I'll celebrate. Until then, I'll await the actual evidence, truth, data, and facts.
Regardless, it's nice to have a civil discussion and disagreement with someone without it degenerating into snark and personal attacks. Have a great night!
:thumbsup:
-
@mountaineer, did you read that article by Daniel Greenfield: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281932.msg1456957.html#msg1456957?
Good explanation of what we are seeing.
I read that excellent article as well.
Anyone reading it and concluding its all no big deal is either a partisan or is not all that bright. Obama's misuse of intelligence and national security agencies for political purposes is an extremely serious business.
It must be dealt with justly or this nation will be in a very bad place in a few more years.
-
That's well and good if there's actual EVIDENCE that it's a cigar. In this particular case, we have a bunch of speculation, hope, and desire that IF we ever find out the "whole truth" Greenfield feels "we will likely discover" Obama used "legal pretexts to spy on the Trump's team". When that day comes, I'll celebrate. Until then, I'll await the actual evidence, truth, data, and facts.
Regardless, it's nice to have a civil discussion and disagreement with someone without it degenerating into snark and personal attacks. Have a great night!
:thumbsup:
And, you too.
-
I read it earlier. Lots of assertions about "crimes", "criminal motives", and attempts to sow outrage by talking about such things as the "Obama espionage operation". Even the article notes that we don't everything:
"When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team."
The bold above is key IMO: if we ever discover the whole truth, and we are "likely". Fine, Greenfield is entitled to his opinion but that's all that is: opinion. Look, I'd love to "Lock her up". I'd love even more to "Lock him up" (Obama). I'm afraid that thinking Obama or someone from his Administration is going to be locked up over a legally issued FISA warrant is just kooky-talk. At least IMO.
I have only one question? Are you on Obama's payroll?
-
I have only one question? Are you on Obama's payroll?
No, I'm not on Obama's payroll anymore than I'd be on Trump's payroll. I'm just a patriotic American trying to evaluate evidence and data as objectively as I can, and someone who tries to hold politicians from both parties accountable for the promises that are important to me.
-
No, I'm not on Obama's payroll anymore than I'd be on Trump's payroll. I'm just a patriotic American trying to evaluate evidence and data as objectively as I can, and someone who tries to hold politicians from both parties accountable for the promises that are important to me.
It's abundantly clear to me that the Obama administration was THE most lawless administration to come along in a century and to be doing your dead level best to defend them!
-
It's abundantly clear to me that the Obama administration was THE most lawless administration to come along in a century and to be doing your dead level best to defend them!
@Bigun
I'd love for Obama and his crew to get rolled up, but I don't see it happening over a legally-issued FISA warrant. Once Trump's Justice Department conducts successful prosecutions of Obama Administration officials, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
-
@Bigun
I'd love for Obama and his crew to get rolled up, but I don't see it happening over a legally-issued FISA warrant. Once Trump's Justice Department conducts successful prosecutions of Obama Administration officials, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
Who says it was legally issued? How do you know that?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Trump "Justice" department to touch ANY of them!
-
Who says it was legally issued? How do you know that?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Trump "Justice" department to touch ANY of them!
Reports are that the warrant was issued by a FISA court. I assume that was legally obtained. If it was indeed illegal, I'd hope the "law and order" Administration would go after the criminals who obtained it illegally. Regardless, the fact that Obama Administration officials won't likely be prosecuted over this, is my entire point. Have a good night. :seeya:
-
@Bigun
I'd love for Obama and his crew to get rolled up, but I don't see it happening over a legally-issued FISA warrant. Once Trump's Justice Department conducts successful prosecutions of Obama Administration officials, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
But did you read the article Sanguine linked to, really? The point it made was while each individual pretext might be technically defensible, together they form a pattern, they apparently add up to a crime.
You seem content to technically defend in detail what on the whole stinks to high heaven. NO patriotic American could be so blase' about the abuse of authority obviously committed by Obama.
-
Reports are that the warrant was issued by a FISA court. I assume that was legally obtained. If it was indeed illegal, I'd hope the "law and order" Administration would go after the criminals who obtained it illegally. Regardless, the fact that Obama Administration officials won't likely be prosecuted over this, is my entire point. Have a good night. :seeya:
How in the hell can anyone have a good night knowing that thier country has been turned into the world's largest banana republic and all of those responsible for doing this are walking around free as birds?
-
How in the hell can anyone have a good night knowing that thier country has been turned into the world's largest banana republic and all of those responsible for doing this are walking around free as birds?
Meanwhile the Washington DC clique's Kraken has been mobilized and is spending millions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of man-hours on a scandal for which there is NO SOLID EVIDENCE.
No rational person without an agenda would defend the current state of affairs.
-
But did you read the article Sanguine linked to, really? The point it made was while each individual pretext might be technically defensible, together they form a pattern, they apparently add up to a crime.
You seem content to technically defend in detail what on the whole stinks to high heaven. NO patriotic American could be so blase' about the abuse of authority obviously committed by Obama.
Yes, I did read the article Sanguine linked to. If there's such obvious evidence of "crimes", "criminal motives", and the "Obama espionage operation" as asserted in that article, what do you think the timeline is for Trump Administration prosecutions of Obama Administration officials? How many successful prosecutions do you expect? I expect zero.
-
How in the hell can anyone have a good night knowing that thier country has been turned into the world's largest banana republic and all of those responsible for doing this are walking around free as birds?
What I think we need is a "law and order" President who truly respects the rule of law. Sadly, I don't expect to see one during the rest of my lifetime (I'm 57). I'm still going to try my best to have a good night with my loving family though. I encourage everyone else to try also.
-
What I think we need is a "law and order" President who truly respects the rule of law. Sadly, I don't expect to see one during the rest of my lifetime (I'm 57). I'm still going to try my best to have a good night with my loving family though. I encourage everyone else to try also.
I'm 69 next week and will die a throughly broken man if these bastards get away with all they've done!
-
Yes, I did read the article Sanguine linked to. If there's such obvious evidence of "crimes", "criminal motives", and the "Obama espionage operation" as asserted in that article, what do you think the timeline is for Trump Administration prosecutions of Obama Administration officials? How many successful prosecutions do you expect? I expect zero.
Are you offering that as proof that obama did not abuse his office or committed no crimes?
-
Is it time to fire Mueller yet?
Is it time to have his trumped-up investigation disbanded yet?
-
Are you offering that as proof that obama did not abuse his office or committed no crimes?
Absolutely not! I'd love to see Obama and his crew prosecuted but I simply don't believe the evidence that I've seen, including the much ballyhooed Greenfield article, is enough to prosecute. I hope Trump's DOJ proves me wrong, but I have little reason to believe that. Despite all this talk, I've seen few, even of the most zealous Trump supporters, who are willing to predict mass successful prosecutions. How many do you predict?
-
How in the hell can anyone have a good night knowing that thier country has been turned into the world's largest banana republic and all of those responsible for doing this are walking around free as birds?
Bigun, I'm having a very nice night. Glass of wine, good company that just left, nice A/C and two dogs whom I've somehow managed to make believe I'm a wonderful person. Looking forward to spending some time with the grandkids tomorrow. No SOB in Washington DC is going to spoil my evening. When we get these peaceful, nice times, we need to make sure and appreciate them. Don't let the b*****ds wear you down.
-
Absolutely not! I'd love to see Obama and his crew prosecuted but I simply don't believe the evidence that I've seen, including the much ballyhooed Greenfield article, is enough to prosecute. I hope Trump's DOJ proves me wrong, but I have little reason to believe that. Despite all this talk, I've seen few, even of the most zealous Trump supporters, who are willing to predict mass successful prosecutions. How many do you predict?
Non sequitur.
-
Non sequitur.
If the Obama Administration so obviously and egregiously broke the law with the Manafort wiretapping, as some seem to assert (including Greenfield in his article), I'd think a true "rule of law" Administration would prosecute. I don't see enough evidence to prosecute, and I expect the same is true with Trump's self-described "law and order" DOJ, which is why I don't expect them to prosecute. Hope that helps you understand the logic of my previous argument.
-
If the Obama Administration so obviously and egregiously broke the law with the Manafort wiretapping, as some seem to assert (including Greenfield in his article), I'd think a true "rule of law" Administration would prosecute. I don't see enough evidence to prosecute, and I expect the same is true with Trump's self-described "law and order" DOJ, which is why I don't expect them to prosecute. Hope that helps you understand the logic of my previous argument.
According to the logic of your previous argument, there been scarcely a law broken by any administration since Watergate.
Thats why I'm not buying it.
-
According to the logic of your previous argument, there been scarcely a law broken by any administration since Watergate.
Thats why I'm not buying it.
And you're entitled to your opinion!
If I'm wrong, I genuinely look forward to the "law and order" Administration prosecutions of Obama Administration officials and will vocally celebrate them!
:thumbsup:
-
And you're entitled to your opinion!
If I'm wrong, I genuinely look forward to the "law and order" Administration prosecutions of Obama Administration officials and will vocally celebrate them!
:thumbsup:
Or, you could add your voice to the chorus demanding that justice be done. As it was with Watergate, sometimes its necessary that the public apply a little pressure to Washington in their own interests. Unless you really do believe that everything Obama did here - the sketchy FISA requests, the unmasking, the distribution of data to various agencies for leaking - was copacetic.
-
Or, you could add your voice to the chorus demanding that justice be done. As it was with Watergate, sometimes its necessary that the public apply a little pressure to Washington in their own interests. Unless you really do believe that everything Obama did here - the sketchy FISA requests, the unmasking, the distribution of data to various agencies for leaking - was copacetic.
I thought I’ve been singing pretty loudly in this thread alone. I’d love to see Obama and his posse be prosecuted. If that’s not clear, I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening with the evidence unearthed to date. I've asked how many prosecutions folks expect and get crickets in reply. If you expect mass prosecutions, I hope you're right.
Look, I tried to be clear below in some selected quotes from this thread alone. I’m sorry I’m unable to clearly communicate with you. Have a nice day though! :seeya:
. ……Look, I'd love to "Lock her up". I'd love even more to "Lock him up" (Obama). ………
I'd love for Obama and his crew to get rolled up, but I don't see it happening over a legally-issued FISA warrant. Once Trump's Justice Department conducts successful prosecutions of Obama Administration officials, I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
Reports are that the warrant was issued by a FISA court. I assume that was legally obtained. If it was indeed illegal, I'd hope the "law and order" Administration would go after the criminals who obtained it illegally. Regardless, the fact that Obama Administration officials won't likely be prosecuted over this, is my entire point. Have a good night. :seeya:
.............I'd love to see Obama and his crew prosecuted.......
..............If I'm wrong, I genuinely look forward to the "law and order" Administration prosecutions of Obama Administration officials and will vocally celebrate them!............
-
I thought I’ve been singing pretty loudly in this thread alone. I’d love to see Obama and his posse be prosecuted. If that’s not clear, I don’t know what is. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening with the evidence unearthed to date. I've asked how many prosecutions folks expect and get crickets in reply. If you expect mass prosecutions, I hope you're right.
Look, I tried to be clear below in some selected quotes from this thread alone. I’m sorry I’m unable to clearly communicate with you. Have a nice day though! :seeya:
Apparently we've been talking past each other then, because the quotes you've provided aren't the kind of support I was talking about. But have a nice day as well.
-
:facepalm2:
-
The lawless rulers who operate using lawlessness, WILL NEVER allow themselves to be restrained by the Rule of Law. Nor will the gatekeepers of justice who are now ALSO lawless, allow justice to be dispensed upon those who trampled the rule of law by instituting the precedent of lawlessness replacing the rule of law.
Anyone who believes and thinks corrupted institutions can be used to bring the corrupt to justice are woefully ignorant of reality and what purpose and use corrupted institutions serve.
-
Circumstantial evidence:
--Bolton unmasked 10 people
--Rice unmasked 260 people
Anything strike you as suspect, of turning a valid, necessary procedure, into partisan politics? (eg. Banana Republic)
(for a certain category who are math challenged, 260 is much, much greater than 10)