The Barbarian said in post #122:
They couldn't find anything criminal against Clinton.
Who is they?
For the d.s. has found ample evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, but it refuses to release it to Gowdy because it is protecting her.
The Barbarian said in post #122:
Maybe they won't find anything against Trump, either.
They've already found stuff against him, and will use it for everything they've got, because they are against him.
The Barbarian said in post #122:
Paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton really don't work very well for you.
Note that the whole Trump "collusion" investigation is a paranoid conspiracy theory. That's why it will have to be abandoned in favor of financial charges vs. Trump.
But these should also be abandoned so that financial charges vs. Clinton (not to mention collusion-with-British-intel charges) are not brought by the new a.g.
The Barbarian said in post #122:
It just points up the massive corruption of the current administration.
As of the Clintons. Back off from both, for to go after just one and not the other shows the total politicization of the d.s.
*******
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: How has Trump assaulted the Constitution?]
Trump's claims that he can abridge the 2nd and 14th Amendments by executive order, for example. His call to redefine libel to include criticism of public figures.
He can't actually do that. Only the Supreme Court and New Amendments can actually change the Constitution and how it is interpreted.
Also, how would the redefinition of libel abridge the 2nd and 14th amendments?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: The midterm election]
It was a message from the voters. In spite of massive Gerrymandering, the republicans suffered major defeat.
Not in the Senate. And incumbent Presidents almost always suffer midterm defeats in Congress. Nothing new at all there.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
Since the midterms, republican leaders are starting to distance themselves from Trump.
Note that the Republican leader of the Senate, and the man who will become the new Republican leader in the House next year are still for Trump.
There has not been a mass defection of Congressional Republican leaders from Trump, for there is no Republican alternative.
And it's not like Republican leaders are going to vote for Biden in 2020.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: The Republicans and the Constitution]
Apparently, they just want to ignore it.
Not at all. The Republicans don't want to ignore any part of the Constitution.
Unlike the Democrats, who would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment and institute nationwide gun confiscation as soon as possible.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Local police separating children from a law-breaking mother put in jail]
They don't harm kids as a means of discouraging parents from applying for asylum.
But do they still harm kids?
If so, then why not protest what they do? And what is the alternative?
Also, how long was the DHS separation policy in effect before it was rescinded?
Also, are you saying that it doesn't harm kids to be locked up in immigration detention centers with their immigrant parents?
That is, it doesn't harm the tender psyches of kids to be locked up like criminals, even though they are still with mom?
And if it does harm them, then would not the answer be to let them and mom go free while her asylum request is being processed?
And then they can disappear forever into the woodwork of the millions of other illegal immigrants in the U.S., with no enforcement against them.
And then the U.S. effectively has no border.
This is, of course, the real aim of leftists who oppose anything done by the U.S. against immigrants applying for asylum.
But most leftists won't admit that they want no border.
-
Also, why does someone way down in Honduras have to come all of the way up to the U.S. for asylum?
Why not go to Nicaragua, or Guatemala, or Mexico?
Because "asylum" per se is not the real goal, but immigration to the U.S.?
Also, could most "asylum" seekers be liars, simply wanting to take advantage of U.S. law?
That is, could they make up stories about how their lives were in danger, when in fact they weren't really?
If so, that is a serious problem, for "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).
The Barbarian said in post #123:
. . . since the 1970s, (from the Cuban refugee crisis) we've given refugees asylum if they manage to get to U.S. territory.
Cubans have carte blanche because of Castro's tyranny. But should Central American countries be labelled as tyrannies, so that the entire population of Central America can freely walk into the U.S.?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Dragging your kids across a barren desert without food or water for days]
Because the alternatives were worse.
Really? Every Central American parent who drags his kids across a barren desert without food or water for days was living even worse before that?
No. Not worse, but wanting something better than he had. But that is never worth your kids dying in the process. It is the criminal abuse of children.
Child Protective Services would immediately take custody of the children of even U.S.-citizen parents who did that, no matter what stories the parents made up for doing so.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Papadopoulos and "collusion"]
He confessed and is now cooperating with the law.
If he confessed to "collusion", then why was he not charged with "collusion"?
The answer is because all that matters is his "cooperating" in the nailing of Trump, the entire point of the charade from its beginning.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Under what legal authority was the Trump dossier an "investigation"?]
Under the 1st Amendment.
Then why is Assange being charged?
And why wasn't what Papadopoulos "wanted" a 1st Amendment "investigation" into Clinton?
Leftists can't have it both ways.
Clinton actually getting dirt on Trump from Steele from Russia was no different, indeed, it was much worse, than some of Trump's people merely "wanting" to get dirt on Clinton from Assange from Russia.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Were the Clinton emails that Papadopoulos "wanted" a legal "investigation"?]
If a judge issued a warrant for them.
What judge issued a warrant for Steele to obtain the Trump dossier from Russia?
Of course, none.
So how was what Steele did legal?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: How well did Russian intel operatives' do with black voters?]
Not as well as they did with racists.
How many racists swung their votes from Clinton to Trump because of Russian influence?
Indeed, how many voters in general did?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
Polls after the election.
What post-election polls showed how many voters swung their votes based on Russian influence?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: British intel hacking Russian intel to obtain the Trump dossier]
Unable to substantiate the claim.
How would it be substantiated without hacking British intel?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: British intel tapping Trump Tower]
Unable to substantiate the claim.
Again, how would it be substantiated without hacking British intel, or getting U.S. intel to admit that it colluded with British intel tapping Trump Tower?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: U.S. collusion with foreign i.c.'s]
Notice the warrants are all public record.
Note that no warrants are needed for U.S. intel to collude with foreign i.c.'s spying on U.S. citizens.
Also, not even FISA warrants are public record.
So U.S. intel can spy on U.S. citizens without the public ever knowing.
This is the danger of the d.s.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Feinstein being warned about someone on her staff]
As a driver. Certainly not as Trump described Papadopoulos "an important advisor."
Then why wasn't Trump warned even more urgently that his view of a staff member was mistaken?
The answer is because Trump was the target from the start, not Papadopoulos.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: The d.s. stonewalled Gowdy's document requests]
Show us that.
It was in the news. The d.s. refuses to hand over Clinton Foundation pay-to-play documents to Congress.
Show us where they did, and what the documents show.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: If the d.s. charges Trump with "collusion" with Russia, then it would have to charge Clinton (and others) with "collusion" with Britain]
Show us that.
Clinton got the Trump dossier from Britain, just as Brennan and Obama colluded with GCHQ's tapping of Trump Tower, based on Fox analysts who have whistleblower contacts within the d.s.
The latter cannot go public without being locked up for the rest of their lives.
For U.S. intel collusion with foreign i.c.'s is claimed to be too "top secret" to reveal to anyone, even to the top members of Congress.
This is the danger of the d.s.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
[Re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play and the Uranium One speech-bribe]
What crime do you think was committed?
Pay-to-play is bribing public officials, which is the crime.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
You're furious that Trump is being treated like Clinton.
Not at all. Clinton is being given a free pass by the d.s., while Trump is being targeted by it.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
. . . Trump followers are politicized.
But Clinton followers aren't?
The Barbarian said in post #123:
The botched republican "investigation" of Clinton . . .
It wasn't botched, but shut down by the d.s.'s refusal to hand over Clinton Foundation pay-to-play documents to Congress.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
It was amusing, at the end of the Benghazi "investigation", which one prominent republican admitted was a plan to damage Clinton politically, to watch Gowdy dancing around, trying to avoid admitting that years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars resulted in no findings of crimes on Clinton's part.
Benghazi was too nebulous to pin on Clinton. But the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play isn't.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
Compare to Muller's investigation, which had taken down numerous criminals in the Trump administration and campaign staff.
Because the d.s. is all for Mueller's investigation of Trump, while it is utterly against any investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
The Barbarian said in post #123:
(additional conspiracy theories deleted)
Note that the Russian "collusion" investigation itself is a conspiracy theory, and one which has resulted in not one charge of "collusion"?
Why is that?
Because the idea from the start was to nail Trump himself, and financial charges will now do just fine.
They would also do just fine against Clinton, if they were pursued by the d.s.
So why not back off from Trump like backing off from Clinton, especially with a new a.g. coming into power?