Did the Obama Administration spy on Trump?

Obama administration spied on Trump?

  • Of course they did and thought they would get away with it

    Votes: 14 51.9%
  • No

    Votes: 13 48.1%

  • Total voters
    27

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
A drinking session with who?

An Australian diplomat who passed his confession on to the U.S. Justice Department.

Also, how was his wanting to get email dirt on Clinton from Russia

A felony.

any different than Clinton actually getting dossier dirt on Trump "from Russia"?

The first is a fact, the second is a fairy tale. The dossier, which was not why the investigation started, was from a British investigator, not Russia.

Was he charged with "collusion"?

With lying to federal authorities about his collusion while working for Trump.

How long did he serve in prison?

He cut a deal for a shorter sentence.

Also, has anyone in Trump's orbit been charged with "collusion"?

So far, for lying about it. But it's not done yet.

Then why didn't they even more urgently warn Trump like they warned Feinstein?

Because the Chinese were trying to recruit a Feinstein staffer, which various Trump underlings were seeking to gain help from the Russians.

You mean like how the d.s. went after a whistleblower regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, and refuses to hand over related documents to Congress?

That, as you know, turned out to be a fantasy. Trey Gowdy tried all sorts of ways to gin it up into something real, and he finally admitted that he couldn't.

How long do you think that she (or almost any other politician) would stand up to the same level of d.s. scrutiny that Trump is undergoing?

About 2 years, it was. Republicans tried everything, but failed to find anything. Now, the democrats are about to see what they can find.

(Or would too many people "commit suicide" during such an investigation?)

Trump has only tangental association with those people. It might be a coincidence that they died before they could testify against him. But it does seem odd.

Also, was there collusion with regard to Uranium One?

Trey Gowdy tried hard to make it so, but he finally admitted that it wasn't.

Or do people just pay $500,000 for one speech without expecting to play?

It was much more than that:
Topping the list by a longshot is billionaire birther and infamous reality-TV host Donald Trump. “The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million per speech at The Learning Annex’s ‘real estate wealth expos’ in 2006 and 2007,” according to Forbes. “Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one.”
In Demand: Washington's Highest (and Lowest) Speaking Fees

No doubt they ponied up that money, expecting to play.


 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Barbarian said in post #100:

So why did He have to step in to fix things then?

What things?

The Barbarian said in post #100:

You know, it's blasphemous to try to make God a part of your political party.

It's not about political parties per se, but about social policies which are either against or for God's Word the Holy Bible.

*******

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: Who was Papadopoulos drinking with?]

An Australian diplomat who passed his confession on to the U.S. Justice Department.

That was because five-eyes was set against Trump from the start. It purposely sought out and set-up Papadopoulos as a way to get to Trump.

The Barbarian said in post #101:

The dossier, which was not why the investigation started, was from a British investigator, not Russia.

Note that he got it from "Russia".

Also, note that the "ex-MI6" "investigator", like the "diplomat", could simply be five-eyes' agents with flimsy covers.

(Five-eyes has really showed its hand in this one.)

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: What Papadopoulos was charged with]

With lying to federal authorities about his collusion while working for Trump.

Why wasn't he charged with "collusion"? And why wasn't Hillary also charged with "collusion" for getting the Russian dossier?

The Barbarian said in post #101:

He cut a deal for a shorter sentence.

What was the deal?

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: Who has been charged with "collusion"?]

So far, for lying about it. But it's not done yet.

Who do you believe will be charged with "collusion"? And why not the British "investigator" who gave the "Russian" dossier to Clinton?

The Barbarian said in post #101:

. . . the Chinese were trying to recruit a Feinstein staffer, which various Trump underlings were seeking to gain help from the Russians.

Then why wasn't Trump warned like Feinstein was?

The answer is because the d.s. is anti-Trump. It wants to nail him. It has become politicized.

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play]

Trey Gowdy tried all sorts of ways to gin it up into something real, and he finally admitted that he couldn't.

For what reason couldn't he?

The answer is because the d.s. has denied him the relevant documents, because the d.s. is protecting Clinton for some reason.

The Barbarian said in post #101:

Now, the democrats are about to see what they can find.

You mean against Trump, not Clinton.

But what if Trump's new a.g. goes after Clinton and releases all the pay-to-play documents, and files charges?

Do the Dems really want to go there?

Why not back off on Trump finances in order to save their beloved Clintons from going down re: finances.

Peace on both sides.

The Barbarian said in post #101:

It might be a coincidence that they died before they could testify against him.

Who died?

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: Uranium One collusion]

Trey Gowdy tried hard to make it so, but he finally admitted that it wasn't.

He did?

And was he denied documents regarding that as well?

The Barbarian said in post #101:

[Re: Trump speaking fees]

No doubt they ponied up that money, expecting to play.

What are his speaking fees since taking office?

Bill received a $500,000 speaking fee while Hillary was Secretary of State considering the Uranium One deal.

Imagine if Melania went to Moscow and was paid $500,000 for a speech, and then shortly afterward Donald handed over 25% of U.S. uranium to Putin. The left would go nuts. Mueller would be all over it.

But the Clintons are being protected from investigation for some reason. Why? What does the d.s. fear about going after them? What do they have on the d.s.?

This is not to say that it should go after them. But let's be consistent and back off on Trump as well.

To do just one and not the other shows the utter politicization of the d.s.

It's entirely corrupt. Why? How did this happen?

Maybe the new a.g. can find out.

The House is lost, and the Senate has no pulse with regard to investigations. So it will be up to the a.g. to get to the root of the problem.

Thank God that Trump focused his mid-term election energies on the Senate. For now it can approve his new a.g.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian, regarding the notion that God made Trump president:
So why did He have to step in to fix things then?

What things?

Whatever you suppose it was for. God intended Trump to be president in the sense that He intended Herod to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. You know, it's blasphemous to try to make God a part of your political party.

It's not about political parties per se,

I see your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive.

but about social policies which are either against or for God's Word the Holy Bible.

You think separating mothers from their children is for God's Word? That's Trump's social policy.

Who was Papadopoulos drinking with?

Barbarian observes:
An Australian diplomat who passed his confession on to the U.S. Justice Department.

That was because five-eyes was set against Trump from the start.

So your magical boogeyman got Trump's people to commit crimes and then drunkenly admit it to an Australian? How does that work?

It purposely sought out and set-up Papadopoulos as a way to get to Trump.

So your boogeyman is the Russians?

The dossier, which was not why the investigation started, was from a British investigator, not Russia.

Note that he got it from "Russia".

He got it from espionage against some Russians, among other things.

Also, note that the "ex-MI6" "investigator", like the "diplomat", could simply be five-eyes' agents with flimsy covers.

Donald Trump might really be a lizard man in disguise. The problem with fantasy solutions is evidence. Lack of it, actually.

With lying to federal authorities about his collusion while working for Trump.

Why wasn't he charged with "collusion"?

He wasn't charged with other crimes yet. Likely won't be, since he provided, in the words of investigators, "substantial assistance" to investigators.

And why wasn't Hillary also charged with "collusion" for getting the Russian dossier?

Probably because there was no collusion on her part.

Who do you believe will be charged with "collusion"?

The law refers to it as "conspiracy."

And why not the British "investigator"

Former British intelligence agent.

who gave the "Russian" dossier to Clinton?

the Chinese were trying to recruit a Feinstein staffer, which various Trump underlings were seeking to gain help from the Russians.
Then why wasn't Trump warned like Feinstein was?

Because the Feinstein staffer was not trying to make connections with Chinese spies. Neither she nor her people were trying to set up an illegal conspiracy, while Trump's people were actively doing so.

Trey Gowdy tried all sorts of ways to gin it up into something real, and he finally admitted that he couldn't.

For what reason couldn't he?

The "E" word you guys find so distasteful. Evidence. Or rather lack of it.

Now, the democrats are about to see what they can find.

You mean against Trump

Mostly some of the criminals in his administration. It could lead to him. But that's not a sure thing, yet.

not Clinton.

A rabidly partisan republican congress, and tens of millions of dollars couldn't gin up a case against her. So doesn't look very promising, does it?

But what if Trump's new a.g. goes after Clinton and releases all the pay-to-play documents, and files charges?

My guess is that given Gowdy's career-ending attempt to make a case won't be lost on him, even if Trump tries to push.

Do the Dems really want to go there?

I think they'd love it.

Why not back off on Trump finances in order to save their beloved Clintons from going down re: finances.

It's a risk they're willing to take, given Gowdy's attempt. He was a prosecutor, you know. He knew when he was whipped; there just wasn't anything he could use.

It might be a coincidence that they died before they could testify against him.
Who died?

Don't know, but I'm sure someone can come up with something more or less connected. It's a game conspiracy buff play.

Barbarian observes:
Trey Gowdy tried hard to make it so, but he finally admitted that it wasn't.


Yep.

And was he denied documents regarding that as well?

Nope. A lot of people have to sign off on something like that. All public record.

[Re: Trump speaking fees]
No doubt they ponied up that money, expecting to play.

What are his speaking fees since taking office?

Last fees were about $1.5 million
10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers In the World

The evidence suggests he used things like "donations to the inaugural fund" after he was elected. Want to learn about that?

Bill received a $500,000 speaking fee while Hillary was Secretary of State considering the Uranium One deal.

He wasn't as good as Ivanka at parlaying influence...

Imagine if Melania went to Moscow and was paid $500,000 for a speech, and then shortly afterward Donald handed over 25% of U.S. uranium to Putin.

Actually, "25% of U.S. uranium" wasn't handed over. They just told you that because they figured you weren't smart enough to check for yourself.

But the Clintons are being protected from investigation for some reason. Why?

The "E"word, again. Gowdy did his level best, but without the (evidence) there isn't much he could do.

This is not to say that it should go after them. But let's be consistent and back off on Trump as well.

Don't hold your breath. Why? "E"word, again.

The House is lost, and the Senate has no pulse with regard to investigations. So it will be up to the a.g. to get to the root of the problem.

He might not be as big a crook as Trump seems to be hoping. Anyway, without evidence, it's a dead issue.

Trump vigorously campaigned for house candidates,which in retrospect did them more harm than good. As the evidence accumulates, republicans are increasingly distancing themselves from him.
 
Upvote 0

jmldn2

Newbie
Supporter
Nov 20, 2013
465
158
✟85,156.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
A drinking session with who? Also, how was his wanting to get email dirt on Clinton from Russia any different than Clinton actually getting dossier dirt on Trump "from Russia"?



Was he charged with "collusion"? How long did he serve in prison?

Also, has anyone in Trump's orbit been charged with "collusion"?

If not, why not?



Then why didn't they even more urgently warn Trump like they warned Feinstein?



You mean like how the d.s. went after a whistleblower regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, and refuses to hand over related documents to Congress?

Why is the d.s. protecting her?

How long do you think that she (or almost any other politician) would stand up to the same level of d.s. scrutiny that Trump is undergoing? (Or would too many people "commit suicide" during such an investigation?)

This is a case of selective prosecution.

Why?

*******



What about the left-wing conspiracy theory of "collusion"?



For what? A charge of "collusion"?

Also, was there collusion with regard to Uranium One? Or do people just pay $500,000 for one speech without expecting to play?


So whenever the left are "left" speechless with any of your questions, they accuse you of being blasphemous and claim you are making God part of your political party? God is in control. He "allows" those in authority to be there; good, bad, and ugly.

PS: your posts are well phrased and full of logic and facts?
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is a Deep State. It is not in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights. The Deep State is a concerted effort to overthrow this president, not because of anything his has done but because of what they want to do to our Republic. It's real. It's evil. It's wrong.
Given that there is good reason to believe the President is opposed to the American form of government, I’d say that the Deep State is a good thing. Go Deep State!
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you paying attention to what has happened to the media in this country? Are you paying attention to what the Democratic party has dissolved into? Have you seen the corruption in the past two years within our highest law in the land?
Yes. That’s why Trump must be opposed.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe in my heart that everybody knows that but, some just will not admit it.

M-Bob
You have convinced me that the Deep State exists and is a necessary evil to protect the nation from wannabe dictators. Go Deep State!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So whenever the left are "left" speechless with any of your questions, they accuse you of being blasphemous and claim you are making God part of your political party?

In this case, it was when someone advanced the idea that God was taking political sides.

God is in control.

So He's advancing the Mueller investigation, and catching all those criminals who have been convicted or pled guilty? I'm thinking that it's mostly the FBI.

PS: your posts are well phrased and full of logic and facts

Well, thank you. I try to write as clearly as I can. And while I'm sometimes accused of being too inclined to document things, I believe it's a good practice.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
In regards to Trump separating children from their parents, Obama did that.

Border patrol has done it. Police do it every day in this country. The issue is that Trump decided to take children from their parents as a way of discouraging asylum requests. When the police do it, it's to protect children. When Trump did it, he was intending to do harm to them, to get at their parents. One of his people resigned after warning him that it would harm them. That's the difference.

Hypocrisy at its finest, from the Trump camp.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Barbarian said in post #103:

God intended Trump to be president in the sense that He intended Herod to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.

Only in the sense that God determines all leaders (Daniel 4:25c, Romans 13:1c). This can include God's judgment against sinful nations (cf. Isaiah 3:12). It can also include God's mercy (2 Peter 3:9b). For example, Trump's election could have been a miracle from God to prevent the coming of the future Antichrist's social policies in the U.S. for a few years, whereas Hillary would have set them up perfectly.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

You know, it's blasphemous to try to make God a part of your political party.

It's not about party, but policies.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

You think separating mothers from their children is for God's Word? That's Trump's social policy.

Did Obama separate mothers from their children when he sent law-breaking mothers to jail? Also, what is the proof of your claim in post #110 above that Trump did the same thing as Obama only to discourage asylum requests?

Why did Obama allow such separations under his watch?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Five-eyes]

So your magical boogeyman got Trump's people to commit crimes and then drunkenly admit it to an Australian?

No, five-eyes intentionally sought out Papadopoulos as a way to target Trump. Also, if Papadopoulos committed a crime by simply "wanting" to get email dirt on Clinton from Russia, then how much more did Clinton commit a crime by actually receiving the dossier-dirt on Trump from Russia.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

So your boogeyman is the Russians?

If you mean Russian intel operatives, they are enemies of the U.S., but so are intel operatives from so-called "friendly" countries like the U.K. and Australia who interfere in U.S. elections.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: How Steele got the dossier]

He got it from espionage against some Russians, among other things.

Do you mean that British intel hacked Russian intel to obtain the dossier?

If so, note that Clinton receiving the dossier would then still be "collusion", but with British intel.

We find similar "collusion" (by Brennan and Obama) with regard to the tapping of Trump Tower by GCHQ, as some analysts on Fox have said based on whistleblower contacts within the d.s.

And even the WSJ has admitted that the truth coming out will result in some "embarrassment" for British intel. (Quite an understatement.)

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Why wasn't Papadopoulos charged with "collusion"?]

He wasn't charged with other crimes yet. Likely won't be, since he provided, in the words of investigators, "substantial assistance" to investigators.

Then his "collusion" didn't matter? All that matters is his "assistance" in nailing Trump, the whole point of the charade?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Who do you believe will be charged with "collusion"?]

The law refers to it as "conspiracy."

Then who do you believe will be charged with "conspiracy"?

And why not Clinton, Brennan, and Obama for conspiring with British intel against Trump?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Steele]

Former British intelligence agent.

Why do you believe that? Why can't he be a present agent pretending to be a former one?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

. . . the Feinstein staffer was not trying to make connections with Chinese spies. Neither she nor her people were trying to set up an illegal conspiracy, while Trump's people were actively doing so.

Then why wasn't Trump even more urgently warned about what some of his people were doing?

The answer is because the whole point of the investigation from the start was to nail Trump himself.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Why Gowdy failed to nail Clinton]

The "E" word you guys find so distasteful. Evidence. Or rather lack of it.

Note that the evidence was kept from Gowdy. For example, the d.s. is still stonewalling his requests for its documents related to its Clinton Foundation pay-to-play investigation. Why is that?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: What the Dems in the House will be investigating next year regarding Trump]

Mostly some of the criminals in his administration. It could lead to him. But that's not a sure thing, yet.

Why do you say "yet"? When do you believe it will be a sure thing, and based on what evidence?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: The new a.g. going after Clinton]

My guess is that given Gowdy's career-ending attempt to make a case won't be lost on him, even if Trump tries to push.

Note that the new a.g. will have access to the d.s. documents denied to Gowdy.

Also, Gowdy declined to run for reelection after he made a visit to FISC to review a warrant to spy on one of Trump's people.

He was a changed man after that visit, broken, having lost his investigative fervor.

What happened? Was he threatened while there? Was his family threatened? Did he not want to "commit suicide"?

Or did he see in the warrant how extensively a supposedly "friendly" foreign i.c. has corrupted the i.c. of the U.S., and that this corruption was all "too secret" for him to reveal publicly without his being locked up for the rest of his life, if not murdered before that?

He is a broken man, because he cared, while almost all of his colleagues in the House could not care less. And the Senate is utterly asleep at the investigative switch, caring more about its expensive lunches and dozing afterward, not wanting to upset the status quo at all.

How sad that such a great nation could come to this, not caring anymore about being independent of a foreign power.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Uranium One]

A lot of people have to sign off on something like that.

Then is collusion okay if you have accomplices?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Trump speaking fees]

Last fees were about $1.5 million

When was that? Before or after he took office?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

The evidence suggests he used things like "donations to the inaugural fund" after he was elected.

How did he use them illegally?

Also, note that even if some of those donations were disguised, foreign, and pay-to-play, that would be no different than the huge, foreign, pay-to-play donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State and running for President.

So let's give Trump a break like we're giving Clinton a break.

The Barbarian said in post #103:

[Re: Bill received a $500,000 speaking fee while Hillary was Secretary of State considering the Uranium One deal]

He wasn't as good as Ivanka at parlaying influence...

Are you kidding? He is the unrivalled master of all things political, both clean and dirty, as is Hillary (although without his charisma). They are still the most powerful couple in the land, shown by the d.s.'s total fear of going after them in any way.

Also, what are you referring to specifically with regard to Ivanka parlaying influence?

The Barbarian said in post #103:

"25% of U.S. uranium" wasn't handed over.

What was?
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
cow451 said in post #106:

Given that there is good reason to believe the President is opposed to the American form of government, I’d say that the Deep State is a good thing.

Note that it is the d.s. which targeted Trump as a candidate and continues to target him as the duly-elected President.

So the d.s. is not interested in the American form of government at all, but in a total police state which, in "collusion" with so-called "friendly" foreign i.c.'s, gets to pick and choose who gets to lead the country.

This must end.

The Founders are turning in their graves.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Note that it is the d.s. which targeted Trump as a candidate and continues to target him as the duly-elected President.

So the d.s. is not interested in the American form of government at all, but in a total police state which, in "collusion" with so-called "friendly" foreign i.c.'s, gets to pick and choose who gets to lead the country.

This must end.

The Founders are turning in their graves.
Deep State would have no problem with a President that was not running the White House like a grifter. The Inaugural money scandal is a perfect example. Go Deep State!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
God intended Trump to be president in the sense that He intended Herod to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.

Only in the sense that God determines all leaders (Daniel 4:25c, Romans 13:1c). This can include God's judgment against sinful nations

That's how it worked out for Galilee and Perea, too. So maybe you have a point.

(cf. Isaiah 3:12). It can also include God's mercy (2 Peter 3:9b).

Could be. For example, midterm elections could have been a miracle from God to prevent the would-be dictator's assault on the Constitution in the U.S. for a few years, whereas a republican victory would have set them up perfectly.

You know, it's blasphemous to try to make God a part of your political party.

It's not about party, but policies.

No, it's about party. If Trump had run as a democrat republcans would be hyperventilating over his behavior. A few republicans for which principle was more important than party, are angry at the things he's done.

Did Obama separate mothers from their children when he sent law-breaking mothers to jail?

He never did that. Usually local police do it, and for most of them, it's a regrettable consequence. Trump, as you just learned, was eager to harm those kids to discourage people from applying for asylum. Harming the children was his intention. When he was warned that it would be damaging to them, he doubled down on the idea.

Also, what is the proof of your claim in post #110 above that Trump did the same thing as Obama

As you know, he didn't.

only to discourage asylum requests?

Trump admin discussed separating moms, kids to deter asylum-seekers in Feb. 2017
Notes from a DHS meeting show it was one of the methods discussed for discouraging asylum-seekers.
Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Department of Health and Human Services official told senators Tuesday that his agency had warned the Trump administration that separating families would be dangerous for children.
...
One official told the Senate Judiciary Committee that while the Trump administration was developing its immigration policies, Health and Human Services officials said they were worried "about any policy which would result in family separation due to concerns we had about the best interests of the child." Commander Jonathan D. White of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a branch of HHS, said they were also uncertain their department had enough resources to handle large numbers of detained immigrants.

"There's no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child," White said.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...seek-answers-about-migrant-family-separations

Why did Obama allow such separations under his watch?

I've yet to find a case where a family reached the border and applied for asylum, where the children were removed from the parents under any other administration. The only cases I can find related to actual crimes committed by the parent other than crossing the border. Trump lied to you about that, because he figured you weren't smart enough to check on it. Turns out the administration admitted, that there never was a written policy authorizing it. Trump just allowed the authorities to look the other way when kids were taken.

No, five-eyes intentionally sought out Papadopoulos as a way to target Trump. Also, if Papadopoulos committed a crime by simply "wanting" to get email dirt on Clinton from Russia

We don't know how far he got, yet. But he committed a felony by lying to the FBI about it. Since he's now cooperating with the law, he's unlikely to be charged with other crimes.

then how much more did Clinton commit a crime by actually receiving the dossier-dirt on Trump from Russia.

Not at all, since it's no crime to investigate candidates. Steele had been commissioned a conservative group to determine if Trump had anything that could compromise him with the Russians. When Trump got nominated, he offered his findings to Clinton.

If you mean Russian intel operatives, they are enemies of the U.S.

And we now know they infiltrated the Trump organization and the NRA to swing the election to Trump.

but so are intel operatives from so-called "friendly" countries like the U.K. and Australia who interfere in U.S. elections.

So would be election fairies. Thing is, we don't have evidence for any of those. Steele was no longer working for England at the time he collected the information on Trump (most of which, has now been verified)

Do you mean that British intel hacked Russian intel to obtain the dossier?

No. That's another story Trump tells people. Completely false.

We find similar "collusion" (by Brennan and Obama) with regard to the tapping of Trump Tower by GCHQ, as some analysts on Fox have said based on whistleblower contacts within the d.s.

As you know, it didn't happen. Trump just lied about that.

The DOJ declared in a September 1, 2017 court filing that "both the FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,"[2][3] and confirmed this in another court filing of October 19, 2018.[4] On September 19, 2017 CNN reported that the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort before and after the presidential election, extending into early 2017, although the report did not make clear whether Manafort was monitored during his tenure with the Trump campaign from March through August 2016. The CNN report also stated that the Manafort surveillance began after he became the subject of an FBI investigation in 2014. Some commentators cited this report as vindication for Trump's claims, while others noted that it did not confirm the accuracy of Trump's original tweets, and that it is still unknown whether any surveillance of Manafort took place at Trump Tower.[5][6][7] Manafort owned a condominium in Trump Tower from 2006 until its seizure by federal authorities following his 2018 convictions.[8][9]
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations - Wikipedia


The tapping of Manafort was by a warrant, and justifiably so; he is a criminal and the wiretaps got him. If you associate with criminals and turn up on the wiretap, it's not wrongdoing by the police. As you know, Trump had a surprising number of criminals in his organizations.

Why do you believe that? Why can't he be a present agent pretending to be a former one?

Feel free to show us that Steele was still working for British intelligence. If you allow fantasies in your discussion, then anything is equally plausible.

Then why wasn't Trump even more urgently warned about what some of his people were doing?

Because Trump described him as a fine person, and an important advisor. Usually, police don't tip off the friends and associates of criminals on the status of investigations of them.

Note that the evidence was kept from Gowdy.

He couldn't get a republican-appointed judge to give him an unlimited fishing license. For good reason. He couldn't show probable cause.

Why do you say "yet"?

Because we don't know for sure if Trump was criminally involved or not.

When do you believe it will be a sure thing, and based on what evidence?

Hopefully at the end of Mueller's investigation. We don't yet know what evidence Mueller has.

Note that the new a.g. will have access to the d.s. documents denied to Gowdy.

Would you like to bet a chocolate chip cookie on the outcome? It's always possible that Gowdy messed up, but he's a former prosecutor, so I don't think so.

Also, Gowdy declined to run for reelection after he made a visit to FISC to review a warrant to spy on one of Trump's people.

The televised sessions with Hillary Clinton pretty much did him in. It did for his career what the Army Hearings did for Joe McCarthy.

He was a changed man after that visit, broken, having lost his investigative fervor.

The wrap-up of his "investigation" was sad or amusing, depending on whether or not you hate Hillary Clinton. He basically admitted that the evidence showed no criminal behavior.

What happened?

He failed to gin up anything like credible charges, and it broke him.

Was he threatened while there? Was his family threatened? Did he not want to "commit suicide"?

That, or he couldn't find any evidence. But you need to be careful about conspiracy stuff here.

(Barbarian notes Russian attempts to get Trump elected)

How sad that such a great nation could come to this, not caring anymore about being independent of a foreign power.

The nation cares. Trump doesn't.

So let's give Trump a break like we're giving Clinton a break.

He's getting it. Little by little. If there's no evidence, then he'll be cleared as Clinton was.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Note that it is the d.s. which targeted Trump as a candidate

Occasionally, as when he suggested Clinton might have to be assassinated if she was elected. That got him a visit from the Secret Service.

and continues to target him as the duly-elected President.

Such as when he tried to order Clinton investigated, and when he declared he could alter the Constitution by executive order. And when he tried to protect some of the criminals working for him.

Trump is not interested in the American form of government at all, but in a total police state which, in which he gives orders and the government must obey. The founders made the state too deep for a single person to overturn the Constitution. In a shallow state like Russian, Putin can do what he wants. In a deep state like America, a would be tyrant is constantly thwarted by the law.

This must end.

Good luck on that. Trump isn't the first to try. He likely won't be the last. Not that he can't damage America trying. He's the first American president to be openly laughed at by foreign leaders. He's the first American president to say he can abridge the 2nd and 14th Amendments by his orders. He's the first American president to boast about getting away with sexual assault.

The Founders are turning in their graves.

I think you're right.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
cow451 said in post #113:

Deep State would have no problem with a President that was not running the White House like a grifter. The Inaugural money scandal is a perfect example. Go Deep State!

Note that the d.s. has no interest in money scandals per se, but only as a way to nail people whom it doesn't like. Otherwise, it would have nailed the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One pay-to-play long ago.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Barbarian said in post #114:

. . . midterm elections could have been a miracle from God to prevent the would-be dictator's assault on the Constitution . . .

What assault are you referring to specifically, for the midterms changed nothing with regard to how the Constitution can be amended.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

. . . whereas a republican victory would have set them up perfectly.

Then the Republicans aren't abandoning Trump? Also, how do the Republicans want to amend the Constitution?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

If Trump had run as a democrat republcans would be hyperventilating over his behavior.

What about his policies? Also, which of Trump's policies are the Democrats praising?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

A few republicans for which principle was more important than party, are angry at the things he's done.

What things?

Also, would they be welcoming Hillary's policies if she had been elected?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Obama separating mothers from their children]

He never did that. Usually local police do it . . .

Did Obama protest that?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

Trump, as you just learned, was eager to harm those kids to discourage people from applying for asylum.

Do local police harm kids by separating them from law-breaking mothers who are put in jail?

If so, what is your solution? Do the kids move into the jail, or can the mother break any law without consequence because she has kids?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

The only cases I can find related to actual crimes committed by the parent other than crossing the border.

Do you believe that crossing the border illegally is a crime?

Also, what about, for example, dragging your kids across a barren desert without food or water for days?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Papadopoulos]

Since he's now cooperating with the law, he's unlikely to be charged with other crimes.

Why wasn't he charged with "collusion"?

The answer is because all that matters is his "cooperation" in nailing Trump, the whole point of the investigation from its inception.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Clinton receiving the dossier]

. . . it's no crime to investigate candidates.

The dossier was an "investigation"? By whom, and under what legal authority?

And were then the Clinton emails that Papadopoulos "wanted" a legal "investigation"?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Russian intel operatives]

And we now know they infiltrated the Trump organization and the NRA to swing the election to Trump.

How many votes did they actually "swing"?

For example, Russian intel made a special point of going after ("influencing") black voters. How did that turn out?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

Steele was no longer working for England at the time he collected the information on Trump . . .

How do you know that?

Also, if Assange was not working for Russia, then could Trump get Clinton's emails "collected" by Assange?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: British intel hacking Russian intel to obtain the dossier]

That's another story Trump tells people. Completely false.

How do you know that it's false?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: GCHQ tapping Trump Tower]

Trump just lied about that.

How do you know that his tapping claim was false?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

The DOJ declared in a September 1, 2017 court filing that "both the FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," . . .

That's because it was not done legally, but secretly, and by a foreign power.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the d.s. is that it does not have to keep any record or disclose in any way its collusion with foreign i.c.'s.

This collusion is considered "too secret" to reveal even to the top members of Congress.

So the d.s. has given itself a blank check to continually spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant, by simply secretly employing so-called "friendly" foreign i.c.'s to do its illegal spying for it.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

Feel free to show us that Steele was still working for British intelligence.

Why do you think that he wasn't?

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Papadopoulos]

. . . Trump described him as a fine person, and an important advisor.

How would Feinstein have described the person she was subsequently warned about?

That is, why wasn't Trump warned that his view of Papadopoulos was mistaken, like Feinstein was warned?

The answer is because the d.s. was hell-bent on nailing Trump. It did not care a whit about Papadopoulos himself.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Gowdy]

. . . He couldn't show probable cause.

Because the d.s. stonewalled his document requests.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

We don't yet know what evidence Mueller has.

Hopefully it won't be like the "evidence" that he and Comey used to target and destroy the life of an innocent person during their anthrax investigation. They should have been barred from government after that debacle; sent out to sell insurance, or used cars.

Also, to be consistent, if the d.s. charges Trump with "collusion" with Russia, then it would have to charge Clinton (and others) with "collusion" with Britain.

Also, if the d.s. charges Trump with financial crimes, then it would have to charge Clinton with regard to the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play and the Uranium One speech-bribe.

So why not back off on Trump like as with Clinton?

The answer is because the d.s. is politicized. It cares less about crimes than about nailing people whom it doesn't like.

It's not about "blind" justice, but political retribution.

SDNY federal prosecutors are a perfect example. Perfectly politicized.

How sad that our country has come to this.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Gowdy]

The televised sessions with Hillary Clinton pretty much did him in.

Not at all, he was still fine after Benghazi. It was Clinton who did herself in with: "What difference does it make?"

The Barbarian said in post #114:

He basically admitted that the evidence showed no criminal behavior.

Can you give his quote and which investigation he was referring to?

For he is being denied the evidence with regard to Clinton Foundation pay-to-play. The d.s. won't release it because it wants to protect Clinton.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Caring about being independent of a foreign power]

The nation cares. Trump doesn't.

Both care, but the d.s. doesn't, for it is utterly dependent on British intel. Humint specifically.

The U.S. is pathetic in humint while the Brits are masters at it.

This is no doubt because they have had hundreds of years practice at it (since Elizabeth I), while the U.S. only started trying (and failing) at it since WWII.

But the Mossad got up to speed at it in one generation after WWII, and is now the equal of MI6.

No doubt this it because the former had to if Israel was to survive.

But the Jews have been successfully gaining humint on their enemies ever since Jericho in the fifteenth century BC (Joshua 2).

So maybe it's in the genes.

It's clearly in the Brits' genes. The amazing British Empire proves that. It could not have been built except upon unrivalled intelligence, cunning, and ruthlessness.

But the U.S. has needed none of those things to survive, because of the huge oceans protecting it, and its huge land area.

But, alas, it has been willing to go back to being a colony of the B.E.

How sad.

So much for the Declaration of Independence.

The Barbarian said in post #114:

[Re: Trump]

If there's no evidence, then he'll be cleared as Clinton was.

Note that Clinton has never been investigated by the d.s. as Trump is now being investigated.

Also, the d.s. is keeping all of its evidence against Clinton secret, while leaking anything against Trump.

*******

The Barbarian said in post #115:

The founders made the state too deep for a single person to overturn the Constitution.

Note that the d.s. (which is not in the Constitution) overturns the Constitution by stonewalling document requests by Congress, for example.

The Barbarian said in post #115:

In a deep state like America, a would be tyrant is constantly thwarted by the law.

Note that the d.s. is not thwarted by the law, for it can do whatever it wants and say that anything illegal that it does is "too secret" to reveal to anyone.

The Barbarian said in post #115:

[Re: Trump]

He's the first American president to be openly laughed at by foreign leaders.

Then is he meant to please them instead of those who elected him?

And should we let foreign powers decide who is worthy to lead the country, like how the d.s. colluded with foreign i.c.'s to target Trump?

God forbid.

For that would be the end of the American form of government.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Note that the d.s. has no interest in money scandals per se, but only as a way to nail people whom it doesn't like. Otherwise, it would have nailed the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One pay-to-play long ago.

That diversion died a long time ago. No one with any sense buys it now. It's just another "yabut." Every criminal's excuse is "everybody does it."

No, they don't. And it took Trey Gowdy years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars to learn that fact.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Note that the d.s. has no interest in money scandals per se, but only as a way to nail people whom it doesn't like. Otherwise, it would have nailed the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One pay-to-play long ago.
Trump Foundation was nailed by his home state for atrocious abuse of the laws and spirit of nonprofits. Your whatabout isn’t making that ok.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Barbarian said in post #118:

Every criminal's excuse is "everybody does it."

That's no excuse, just as it's no excuse for the d.s. to go only after Trump and not Clinton.

Let it treat Trump like it's treating Clinton.

The Barbarian said in post #118:

[Re: Everybody does it]

No, they don't. And it took Trey Gowdy years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars to learn that fact.

Of course not everybody does it, but note that the d.s. is stonewalling Gowdy with regard to the documents regarding the Clinton Foundation's pay-to-play, because the d.s. is protecting Clinton.
 
Upvote 0