The more we learn about Trump’s corruption of DOJ, the worse it gets

[aubiefifty 16,844]

10 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Coup, insurrection and whatever other terms that Democrats and media put on Jan. 6th is almost laughable.   

Why not, civil disturbance meant to challenge and disrupt the electoral college votes.  

are you saying you were fine with jan 6?

[aubiefifty 16,844]

On 6/16/2021 at 3:33 PM, AUFAN78 said:

To some it's as if 2016 never happened. Amazing. 

I think most will agree they don't like how Trump handled the 2020 election, but to dismiss what happened in 2016 and dems trying to subvert that election should not be lost. Russia? Ukraine? Come on man. Sure different tactics but same intent.

Just some honesty and integrity would be nice on occasion. 

the article says this crap has been going on twenty years so no one mentions W? the man that lied us into destroying iraq?

[aubiefifty 16,844]

On 6/15/2021 at 5:56 PM, jj3jordan said:

Could any justice department be more corrupt than Obama's? Please give me a break.

can you fookin admit trump was a huge problem and act like you are concerned about the shady stuff he did or keep giving trump a pass so others think it is not a problem because some people just do not care? good grief.

[aubaseball 2,641]

4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

are you saying you were fine with jan 6?

Negative.  It was the dumbest thing that could have happened.   People should have challenged the state officials and asked for a transparent recount of every vote.   If there is no fraud, which all Democrats claim, then it shouldn’t be an issue.  To me the issue is that some voting laws were changed due to  covid... was this legal?  It can be debated and challenged in courts but it won’t change the fact that it happened.   

[TexasTiger 12,969]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

Negative.  It was the dumbest thing that could have happened.   People should have challenged the state officials and asked for a transparent recount of every vote.   If there is no fraud, which all Democrats claim, then it shouldn’t be an issue.  To me the issue is that some voting laws were changed due to  covid... was this legal?  It can be debated and challenged in courts but it won’t change the fact that it happened.   

There were numerous recounts. No evidence of significant fraud. Trumpers just don’t like the outcome and can’t stand losing to the point of mass delusion.

[bigbird 60,577]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There were numerous recounts. No evidence of significant fraud. Trumpers just don’t like the outcome and can’t stand losing to the point of mass delusion.

#notmypresident

[SaltyTiger 7,832]

42 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There were numerous recounts. No evidence of significant fraud. Trumpers just don’t like the outcome and can’t stand losing to the point of mass delusion.

May have been learned from the anti Trumpers reaction to the 2016 election. The circus began pre inauguration and continued like machine gun fire. Where we are today is far from totally on Trump and his supporters. Believing so is delusional.

[TexasTiger 12,969]

47 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

May have been learned from the anti Trumpers reaction to the 2016 election. The circus began pre inauguration and continued like machine gun fire. Where we are today is far from totally on Trump and his supporters. Believing so is delusional.

That’s a delusion, too. There weren’t numerous recounts, lawsuits or claims of fraud after 2016. There was a prompt concession. The outgoing President warmly greeted the incoming President. He and the vanquished candidate showed up for the inauguration to legitimize it. No one was encouraged to storm the Capitol. The view you cite is total BS, but you’re convinced it’s true.

What anti-Trumpers did claim — undue Russian influence. This was later established to be true by Senate Republicans. 

[TexasTiger 12,969]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

#notmypresident

You counter a Capitol insurrection to overturn an election with…a hashtag? 🤣 Yep. Identical.

[bigbird 60,577]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You counter a Capitol insurrection to overturn an election with…a hashtag? 🤣 Yep. Identical.

Never tried to equate it to Jan 6.

I responded to your post saying...

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Trumpers just don’t like the outcome and can’t stand losing to the point of mass delusion.

 

Where did you get lost?

[TexasTiger 12,969]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Never tried to equate it to Jan 6.

I responded to your post saying...

 

Where did you get lost?

Not lost. Folks have been using that phrase for several Presidents now. Doesn’t mean they’ve deluded themselves to the reality of the election. Trump folks think Biden isn’t anyone’s President. 

[homersapien 11,401]

On 6/15/2021 at 10:01 PM, Grumps said:

You mean like Mr. Clinton meeting with AG while his wife is under investigation? Or like lying to obtain FISA warrants? Or like destroying cell phones and other info that has been subpoenaed? Or like the DOJ investigating your political opponents?

Trump is a sleaze (who is no longer in office). We agree on that. But one of us is a hypocrite who thinks that only one side is corrupt.

The emails document how Trump tried to use the DOJ to reverse an election.

This is unprecedented.  It's never happened before.  Not by Democrats or anyone else.

Whataboutism fails when there's no equivalence.

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,401]

18 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Coup, insurrection and whatever other terms that Democrats and media put on Jan. 6th is almost laughable.   

Why not, civil disturbance meant to challenge and disrupt the electoral college votes.  

Are you serious?   What's the difference?

[homersapien 11,401]

18 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Hillary says hold on a minute.   I never concede.  And what was her other comment...oh yay, under no circumstances believe the outcome of the election (2020).  

Let's see a quote on that.

Regardless, what has happened since?

Edited June 19, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,401]

3 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Negative.  It was the dumbest thing that could have happened.   People should have challenged the state officials and asked for a transparent recount of every vote.   If there is no fraud, which all Democrats claim, then it shouldn’t be an issue.  To me the issue is that some voting laws were changed due to  covid... was this legal?  It can be debated and challenged in courts but it won’t change the fact that it happened.   

That actually did happen.  And the courts ruled on the legal challenges. Likewise, the changes that were made to the process because of Covid were perfectly legal.

This seditious insurrection was and is founded in Trump's "big lie".  Apparently there are several millions of fools who who are determined to believe him.

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 16,844]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

#notmypresident

so how do you feel about the repukes trying to shutdown investigations into the sixth other than what the police are doing? are they afraid ted and hayley will lose them seats?  and my repuke is not for honorable repubs. but why are more repubs not standing up to get the truth? what am i missing bird. hell the repubs even refuse to honor the capital police. are they pro cop or not? officers were beaten. some were shamed and killed themselves.two officers i believe. blood was spilt. we are in scary times.i honestly believe if trump actually took this country. i am not happy sometimes with the dems but they have yet to storm capitals like in michigan or our capital. anyone know? how does the country survive this?

[DKW 86 7,433]

5 hours ago, aubaseball said:

 People should have challenged the state officials and asked for a transparent recount of every vote.   If there is no fraud, which all Democrats claim, then it shouldn’t be an issue. 

Like all elections there was small amount of fruad, nothing that came close to overturning one precinct.

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There were numerous recounts. No evidence of significant fraud. 

Bingo

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

#notmypresident

Only a dumbass has ever said that. Blue or Red, they are a dumbass.

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s a delusion, too. There weren’t numerous recounts, lawsuits or claims of fraud after 2016. There was a prompt concession. The outgoing President warmly greeted the incoming President. He and the vanquished candidate showed up for the inauguration to legitimize it. No one was encouraged to storm the Capitol. The view you cite is total BS, but you’re convinced it’s true.

What anti-Trumpers did claim — undue Russian influence. This was later established to be true by Senate Republicans. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-lawyer-responds-to-grassley-graham-on-2017-russia-meeting-2018-2

Yea, about all that. The Obama Admin held a meeting with the FBI about what turned up to be all but nothing dossier and stories that were unverifiable. At this point the FBI already knew they had nothing according to Strzok's notes. And that was the genesis for 4.5 years of wasted time.

[TexasTiger 12,969]

4 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Like all elections there was small amount of fruad, nothing that came close to overturning one precinct.

Bingo

Only a dumbass has ever said that. Blue or Red, they are a dumbass.

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-lawyer-responds-to-grassley-graham-on-2017-russia-meeting-2018-2

Yea, about all that. The Obama Admin held a meeting with the FBI about what turned up to be all but nothing dossier and stories that were unverifiable. At this point the FBI already knew they had nothing according to Strzok's notes. And that was the genesis for 4.5 years of wasted time.

The FBI was handed a dossier from John McCain at the urging of Lindsey Graham. The FBI briefed officials on their investigation. Turned out, many folks in the Trump campaign would be convicted felons. But Obama never undermined the election outcome. 

[DKW 86 7,433]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

The FBI was handed a dossier from John McCain at the urging of Lindsey Graham. The FBI briefed officials on their investigation. Turned out, many folks in the Trump campaign would be convicted felons. But Obama never undermined the election outcome. 

True, but the FBI already knew they had nothing by Jan 2017 according to Strzok. So why did they have the meeting? What was to be gained?

[TexasTiger 12,969]

9 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

True, but the FBI already knew they had nothing by Jan 2017 according to Strzok. So why did they have the meeting? What was to be gained?

Gotta link to him saying that?

[DKW 86 7,433]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Gotta link to him saying that?

https://nypost.com/2020/07/20/fbi-knew-collusion-was-a-nothing-burger-but-kept-fake-scandal-alive-anyway/

‘We have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [Russian intelligence officers].”

How much wasted time on pointless investigations could have been prevented had Peter Strzok, then one of the FBI’s top counterintelligence officials who was spearheading the bureau’s Trump-Russia investigation, said this publicly one month into President Trump’s term?

But no, it was a private note by Strzok, for consumption within the FBI, to debunk a Feb. 14, 2017, New York Times article. The news story, a compilation by five of the Times’ top reporters, working four unnamed sources (the usual “current and former American officials”), claimed that members of the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” before the 2016 election.

This was false. Just as important, the FBI knew it was false.

But we, the American people, only know that now, in 2020, because Strzok’s notes were finally made public on Friday.

The Times article centrally identified former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a key adviser in communication with Kremlin spies. Strzok, however, countered that the bureau was “unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party.”

Significantly, the Times report was part of a tireless campaign of government leaks, mostly from current and former intelligence operatives (undoubtedly from officials who either worked in agencies still teeming with Obama holdovers or left government after serving the Obama administration).

The story was published just after the firing of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. As part of the Trump transition, Flynn had engaged in perfectly appropriate contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, but had been publicly portrayed as if he were a clandestine agent working for Moscow against the country he’d bled for as a decorated US Army commander.

The narrative of “Trump collusion with Russia” was pure fiction. The public officials who peddled it to a voracious anti-Trump press had to know it was bunk. Yet they fed the beast anyway, regardless of the cloud this created, regardless of how much it harmed the administration’s capacity to govern.

Worse: This was not merely a media scam. The FBI and the Obama Justice Department made similar representations, under oath, to the federal court that oversees secret government surveillance programs.

By the time of the Times report, the bureau and Obama DOJ had obtained warrants to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Cater Page in October 2016 and January 2017. The FBI knew it was junk when they went for the second FISA Warrant Jan 2017, hence they committed fraud with the emails, reversing what was actually in the emails that exonerated Page.

In each warrant, the court was told: “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Trump’s] campaign.” Moreover, the warrant applications painted a picture of a “conspiracy of cooperation” between Donald Trump and the Putin regime, with Manafort at the hub, using such underlings as Page and Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as intermediaries.

Media told America FBI had proof of collusion as bureau was realizing it had nothing

It was complete nonsense, largely based on the so-called dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Strzok’s notes attest that the FBI knew Steele’s reporting was highly suspect.

And that’s not the half of it. The Senate Judiciary Committee, at the same time it disclosed Strzok’s notes, also released a lengthy internal FBI memorandum detailing that Steele had immense credibility problems. In particular, his reporting was based on third-hand (or even less reliable) hearsay and innuendo. It was funneled to him through a sub-source who told the FBI, in a lengthy February 2017 interview, that the dossier claims were exaggerations and innuendo gussied up to seem like real intelligence. So the FBI was trying to reconfirm the evidence they aleady had disregarded thru a source they had real credibility issues with. 

Yet, despite knowing that, far from dropping its bogus investigation, the FBI doubled down, seeking new warrants in April and June, failing to correct its misrepresentations.

It is a shocking black eye for American law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Justice Department’s criminal investigation is said to be reaching its conclusion. Americans need answers.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

13 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

can you fookin admit trump was a huge problem and act like you are concerned about the shady stuff he did or keep giving trump a pass so others think it is not a problem because some people just do not care? good grief.

Short answer No. What shady stuff? I liked his platform and wished he could have enacted it with legislation.  I know you hate him personally which is fine.  Define what you are calling shady that I must defend. No links required just your opinion.

[aubiefifty 16,844]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Short answer No. What shady stuff? I liked his platform and wished he could have enacted it with legislation.  I know you hate him personally which is fine.  Define what you are calling shady that I must defend. No links required just your opinion.

gassing a public and lawful and peaceful gathering to wave a bible. upside down by the way. firing up his base and not trying to stop them from over running the capital. using the justice department to try and steal the election. you know, the normal for trump.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 6/18/2021 at 1:36 PM, homersapien said:

Bullschitt!

You are trying to equate whatever random scandal by a Democrat with attacking the very basis of our democracy. (Which one in particular is equivalent to overturning a legal election - the Steele dossier??  How so?)

You are making a pathetically desperate attempt to excuse sedition - if not treason - because the democratic party is not perfect.  You are literally excusing a coup attempt and justifying the past and future actions of politically-motivated terrorists.

If you cannot bring yourself to focus specifically on Trump's claims the election was stolen and he is the rightful president - a claim that the majority of the Republican party supports, then you are indeed a useful idiot who doesn't deserve the democratic freedoms you currently enjoy.

I think Trump is an idiot for thinking/saying that the election was stolen and he is the rightful president. I think you are wrong that the majority of the republican party supports the idea that Trump is the rightful POTUS. I think Trump has the right to think and claim that the election was stolen and he is the rightful POTUS. I think that I have the right to think and claim that I am the rightful POTUS.

I don't care what you think I deserve. And for the record, I respect your right to claim that you are the rightful POTUS as well.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 6/19/2021 at 1:53 PM, homersapien said:

The emails document how Trump tried to use the DOJ to reverse an election.

This is unprecedented.  It's never happened before.  Not by Democrats or anyone else.

Whataboutism fails when there's no equivalence.

 

So are you saying that it is OK to use the DOJ to change election results before the election, but not after???? 

Can you show the emails where Trump used the DOJ to reverse an election?