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.