• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Did the Obama Administration spy on Trump?

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by Mountainmanbob, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. Of course they did and thought they would get away with it

    14 vote(s)
    51.9%
  2. No

    13 vote(s)
    48.1%
  1. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    An Australian diplomat who passed his confession on to the U.S. Justice Department.

    A felony.

    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.

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

    He cut a deal for a shorter sentence.

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.


     
  2. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    What things?

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

    *******

    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.

    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.)

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

    What was the deal?

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Who died?

    He did?

    And was he denied documents regarding that as well?

    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.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian, regarding the notion that God made Trump president:
    So why did He have to step in to fix things then?

    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.

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

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

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

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

    So your boogeyman is the Russians?

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

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

    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.

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

    Probably because there was no collusion on her part.

    The law refers to it as "conspiracy."

    Former British intelligence agent.

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    I think they'd love it.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

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

    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.

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

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

    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.
     
  4. jmldn2

    jmldn2 Newbie Supporter

    465
    +156
    United States
    Methodist
    Married

    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?
     
  5. jmldn2

    jmldn2 Newbie Supporter

    465
    +156
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    In regards to Trump separating children from their parents, Obama did that. Obama as well pepper sprayed illegals several times at the border but hey it's different whenever Trump does it. Hypocrisy at its finest, from the left.
     
  6. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,385
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    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!
     
  7. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,385
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes. That’s why Trump must be opposed.
     
  8. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,385
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You have convinced me that the Deep State exists and is a necessary evil to protect the nation from wannabe dictators. Go Deep State!
     
  9. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    In this case, it was when someone advanced the idea that God was taking political sides.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  11. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    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.

    It's not about party, but policies.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.)

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

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

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

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

    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.

    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?

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

    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.

    Then is collusion okay if you have accomplices?

    When was that? Before or after he took office?

    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.

    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?

    What was?
     
  12. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  13. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,385
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    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!
     
  14. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian observes:
    God intended Trump to be president in the sense that He intended Herod to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    As you know, he didn't.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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)

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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)

    The nation cares. Trump doesn't.

    He's getting it. Little by little. If there's no evidence, then he'll be cleared as Clinton was.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2018
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Occasionally, as when he suggested Clinton might have to be assassinated if she was elected. That got him a visit from the Secret Service.

    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.

    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.

    I think you're right.
     
  16. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  17. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    What assault are you referring to specifically, for the midterms changed nothing with regard to how the Constitution can be amended.

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

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

    What things?

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

    Did Obama protest that?

    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?

    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?

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

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

    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?

    How do you know that?

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

    How do you know that it's false?

    How do you know that his tapping claim was false?

    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.

    Why do you think that he wasn't?

    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.

    Because the d.s. stonewalled his document requests.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    *******

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

    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.

    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.
     
  18. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,082
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  19. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,385
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  20. Bible2+

    Bible2+ Matthew 4:4

    +374
    Christian
    Private
    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.

    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.
     
Loading...