Obama’s 3 residences being searched

[headshuck]

Just kidding. Of course they aren’t.

[Plasmodium]

Every president since LBJ has been investigated by special counsel - except Barack Obama.

[El Luchador]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:21 PM, Plasmodium said:

Every president since LBJ has been investigated by special counsel - except Barack Obama.

Not that he didn't deserve it. 

[El Luchador]

Fast and furious anyone? 

[mspart]

Yes that was an issue that most would rather forget.   But handing firearms to the cartels for their use in killing border patrol agents just doesn't pass the smell test of this being a good idea.  And perhaps an illegal idea.  Did they go through all the Mexican controls for obtaining firearms?  If not, the perhaps it should be looked into. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

6 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Not that he didn't deserve it. 

He certainly wasn't popular with the GOP. According to 6 years of John Boehner and Paul Ryan he didn't deserve it.  According to the undocumented opinion of  El Luchador - he did. 

[El Luchador]

My opinion is  now documented,  he criminally allowed guns into the hands of criminals. I don't accept an argument based the appeal of authority. 

[Plasmodium]

6 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

My opinion is  now documented,  he criminally allowed guns into the hands of criminals. I don't accept an argument based the appeal of authority. 

Apparently, Obama's political enemies - who had authority and motive - thought he did nothing to justify a special counsel.  That is why I posted my original assertion.

[El Luchador]

Should I make a list of people who think he should be? 

[mspart]

Well, apparently that is correct.  

Trump got one while in office and it was not deserved.   Do you agree with that?   Mueller said there was no collusion.   The whole Mueller thing was a waste of time.   We now know that all of that info from the Steele dossier was fictional and yet it was used to get warrants from FISA to spy on Trump's folks.  And it was known to be untruthful, yet presented as wonderful evidence to FISA court.    Do you agree with this?  You should because FBI has admitted as much.  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged/

mspart

[Plasmodium]

19 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Should I make a list of people who think he should be? 

That would be a long list that doesn't include Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner or Paul Ryan.

[Plasmodium]

21 minutes ago, mspart said:

Well, apparently that is correct.  

Trump got one while in office and it was not deserved.   Do you agree with that?   Mueller said there was no collusion.   The whole Mueller thing was a waste of time.   We now know that all of that info from the Steele dossier was fictional and yet it was used to get warrants from FISA to spy on Trump's folks.  And it was known to be untruthful, yet presented as wonderful evidence to FISA court.    Do you agree with this?  You should because FBI has admitted as much.  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged/

mspart

There was way too much smoke for there to be no fire.  How many indictments, convictions and decades of sentences came out of that investigation?   Mueller did not say there was no collusion.  Paul Manafort said there was collusion and in fact, he colluded with Russia while he was Trump's campaign manager.

I'll freely grant you some of the Steele dossier was false. However, the subsequent FISA applications snowballed because of the evidence rolling in - resulting in the unprecedented convictions of very corrupt people in Trump's inner circle.

Let's not forget there were two special counsels that came out of this.  John Durham's investigation resulted in zero jail time  and a single charge.

[El Luchador]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

There was way too much smoke for there to be no fire.  How many indictments, convictions and decades of sentences came out of that investigation?   Mueller did not say there was no collusion.  Paul Manafort said there was collusion and in fact, he colluded with Russia while he was Trump's campaign manager.

I'll freely grant you some of the Steele dossier was false. However, the subsequent FISA applications snowballed because of the evidence rolling in - resulting in the unprecedented convictions of very corrupt people in Trump's inner circle.

Let's not forget there were two special counsels that came out of this.  John Durham's investigation resulted in zero jail time  and a single charge.

If you're trying to use the political decision made by the corrupt as evidence of anything,  you're a fool.  Mueller concluded his investigation and never heard of Fusion GPS.  Hillary destroyed evidence and the corrupt Obama administration illegally spied on Trump.  Malicious prosecution and turning a blind eye to blatant corruption.  That's who you're relying on for credence?

[Bigbrog]

Hey @Plasmodium...they ALL are corrupt!!!  Do you agree that if anyone breaks the law, they should be investigated and charged if warranted?  Why does this not hold true for politicians??  I would challenge you to try and at least look at any politician with the same lens no matter what letter they assign themselves too...we all will wait...

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Hey @Plasmodium...they ALL are corrupt!!!  Do you agree that if anyone breaks the law, they should be investigated and charged if warranted?  Why does this not hold true for politicians??  I would challenge you to try and at least look at any politician with the same lens no matter what letter they assign themselves too...we all will wait...

Of course they are all corrupt.  Some are more corrupt than others.

You need to step up your game.   You can't just criticize the ones you perceive to be left.  If you are to continue this charade of pretending not to have a side, you have to call out everyone.  I can't do all of this work myself.  These guys are prolific and I have a strong suspicion some are retired.

[Bigbrog]

@Plasmodium But I haven't seen to many on the "other side" blindly apply their logic and criticism to only one side while forgiving their side when they misstep.  Has anyone on here...this part of the message board...blindly forgave Trump and all the bad things that come with him?  They just tell the facts while others...like you...use mostly emotion on topics and completely turn a blind eye to "your side" on things.  So I am comfortable who I call out and who I don't.  And I am also comfortable being called out when I do say something stupid like @jross and others have done...I'm cool with addressing my hypocrisy and am okay with admitting I have been wrong.

[Plasmodium]

12 hours ago, El Luchador said:

If you're trying to use the political decision made by the corrupt as evidence of anything,  you're a fool.  Mueller concluded his investigation and never heard of Fusion GPS.  Hillary destroyed evidence and the corrupt Obama administration illegally spied on Trump.  Malicious prosecution and turning a blind eye to blatant corruption.  That's who you're relying on for credence?

What?  The corruption decisions were made by juries of peers.   There was no malicious prosecution.  Hillary isn't even a thing. 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

@Plasmodium But I haven't seen to many on the "other side" blindly apply their logic and criticism to only one side while forgiving their side when they misstep.  Has anyone on here...this part of the message board...blindly forgave Trump and all the bad things that come with him?  They just tell the facts while others...like you...use mostly emotion on topics and completely turn a blind eye to "your side" on things.  So I am comfortable who I call out and who I don't.  And I am also comfortable being called out when I do say something stupid like @jross and others have done...I'm cool with addressing my hypocrisy and am okay with admitting I have been wrong.

That first sentence is a doozy!!

Yes, they have forgiven Trump all his transgressions. Some are so full of bias, they dance when another gets his skull crushed.  Crickets from you.  I am careful if what I post, so I am never wrong.

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

That first sentence is a doozy!!

Yes, they have forgiven Trump all his transgressions. Some are so full of bias, they dance when another gets his skull crushed.  Crickets from you.  I am careful if what I post, so I am never wrong.

Can you show me where anyone on here have forgiven Trump's transgression without providing evidence/facts as to their opinion?

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Can you show me where anyone on here have forgiven Trump's transgression without providing evidence/facts as to their opinion?

 

15 hours ago, mspart said:

Well, apparently that is correct.  

Trump got one while in office and it was not deserved.   Do you agree with that?   Mueller said there was no collusion.   The whole Mueller thing was a waste of time.   We now know that all of that info from the Steele dossier was fictional and yet it was used to get warrants from FISA to spy on Trump's folks.  And it was known to be untruthful, yet presented as wonderful evidence to FISA court.    Do you agree with this?  You should because FBI has admitted as much.  https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged/

mspart

 

[Bigbrog]

@Plasmodium what did mspart say that wasn't true in regard to the Russian investigation and all the FISA stuff?  Or what was said that shows his blind devotion to Drump?  He seems to always back up what he says with info/data/links/etc. that support his opinion on the topic.  Which then to me doesn't scream blind "R" devotion, or that he is applying certain elements of guilt and innocent based on the letter after someone's name.

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

@Plasmodium what did mspart say that wasn't true in regard to the Russian investigation and all the FISA stuff?  Or what was said that shows his blind devotion to Drump?  He seems to always back up what he says with info/data/links/etc. that support his opinion on the topic.  Which then to me doesn't scream blind "R" devotion, or that he is applying certain elements of guilt and innocent based on the letter after someone's name.

The first sentence of the paragraph.  Of course it was deserved!!  Any review of the resulting indictments, convictions and sentences related to this case is all any fair minded person needs to justify a special counsel.

[Bigbrog]

20 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The first sentence of the paragraph.  Of course it was deserved!!  Any review of the resulting indictments, convictions and sentences related to this case is all any fair minded person needs to justify a special counsel.

I guess it is how someone would read that sentence...I took it as Trump didn't deserve to be investigated in the first place given what they found after the began the investigation...which I sort of agree with...it is a hindsight statement not a statement of his support of Trump at all costs, or he is choosing to give him a "pass" just because he may vote "R" all the time (which I have no idea if he does or doesn't).  And I didn't read it as a sentiment to finding out stuff about other people who did "bad" things and got found out.

How about this...if an investigation was started and the reasons why the investigation was started turned out to be false or inaccurate (even if other stuff was found out and other people got in trouble) is that a "justifiable" investigation in your opinion?

[Plasmodium]

26 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I guess it is how someone would read that sentence...I took it as Trump didn't deserve to be investigated in the first place given what they found after the began the investigation...which I sort of agree with...it is a hindsight statement not a statement of his support of Trump at all costs, or he is choosing to give him a "pass" just because he may vote "R" all the time (which I have no idea if he does or doesn't).  And I didn't read it as a sentiment to finding out stuff about other people who did "bad" things and got found out.

How about this...if an investigation was started and the reasons why the investigation was started turned out to be false or inaccurate (even if other stuff was found out and other people got in trouble) is that a "justifiable" investigation in your opinion?

Putting this case aside....

Intent is important.  If a warrant is issued based on an inaccuracy or misconception without attempt to conceal truth - yes, justified.  If perjury is involved, no.

[Bigbrog]

27 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Putting this case aside....

Intent is important.  If a warrant is issued based on an inaccuracy or misconception without attempt to conceal truth - yes, justified.  If perjury is involved, no.

Somewhat valid statement in regard to intent...which I will put the case in question aside because your statement then becomes invalid as we all know what the "intent" was.  But I would be concerned with how we are issuing warrants that may be based on inaccurate information...regardless of attempt to conceal truth.  It is just a slippery slope is all.  I am all for catching people breaking the law and holding them accountable, but within the constitution and our justice system process.