But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

I'm not saying that. I'm saying one idiot present having an affair with a subordinate (against all modern HR policies) is less important than a different idiot inviting foreign powers to become involved in our elections. It seems some Americans now are okay, however, with foreign powers getting involved in elections, with a president asking for information about a political opponent. They need to amend or change the constitution for that to be legal though.

I literally don't know what you're talking about. This is all just odd. Are you talking about Fusion GPS? A consulting company that both major US parties have worked with in the past. I don't consider it beautiful, savory activity, but it's legal and it's entirely different than an elected official and his private attorneys (paid by whom?) requesting that dirt when he needs to be representing all Americans.

And this Justice Department is a wing of... that seems kind of crazy, TBH. Sorry, but I think that's getting into crazy-pants land. These federal agencies are too large, too old, and too full of people with various personal political beliefs to become an "arm" of either party. It just is absolutely illogical.

 

You realize, of course, that this all comes down to the following for those you wish to convince:

Veracosa Mistress of Destruction: I can't understand a word you're saying. What kind of language is that?
Barbarian: It is the tongue of my native land, Dyslexia.

 

Hillary Clinton isn't president. She lost. There is a bigger chance that the Timberwolves win the 2020 NBA Championship than she ever wins the Democratic nomination again
Bill Clinton isn't president and can't be due to the 25th Amendment. He was IMPEACHED and also punished by the the Arkansas Bar association for his actions.
Neither are relevant any more and their time has passed. For the Administration to bring them up now is a transparently obvious attempt at distraction. The only reason it has any chance of working is the obsession that many still hold towards the Clintons. Trump supporters like to talk about "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is the current president and is very relevant. What does it say though for those still obsessing more than two years after the election over the losing candidate and over a President that left office 18 years ago?

 

This ignores that the climate now is vastly different than in the 80's and 90's. Sexual assault by powerful men is on the front burner. Someone like a Bill Cosby never could have gotten away with what he did in this day and age, same with Clinton and Trump. And really, someone like Trump with all of his incredible baggage could never have gotten elected in the 90's anyway.

 

Understand. This is making a couple of presumptions. First, that that is what he was doing. Second, that there weren't other motivations. Well, those are both intertwined, but there is a presumption of motivation here, when other factors are definitely presentl.

See above. Trump has been subject to exactly this type of political ploy since before he was elected. The ENTIRE Russia investigation was a political ploy. Which led to the entire Mueller investigation, Russia Russia Russia in the MSM, for over 2 years. This was a concerted ploy to sway the election, and once the election was complete, to undermine Trump and attempt to get him impeached. How is THAT ok, but this is just the most terrible thing anybody can think of? That message is all part of the same political strategy, too.

Plus, given this, how is it not natural for the POTUS, and victim of this ploy, to then inquire of those who seemed to be involved, 'hey, perhaps you could investigate this?' Keep in mind, many of these same places OFFERED help in this area.

It's not possible to look at the sequence of events, including this whole whisteblower scenario, and come to any other conclusion. This has been going on for going back many years. To the point where they were doing it right out in the open, fully believing (and being right) that they could still get away with it.

Some minor data points:

1. You can start with Clinton's meeting on the tarmac with Loretta. That was CLEARLY a meeting to strategize and coordinate how to end the Hillary email investigation. You would have to be woefully naive to not understand that.
2. The follow on report that Comey addressed, clearly articulating how Hillary broke the law, but then, completely outside of the request and beyond the duty of the FBI, indicating no punishment should be indicated. That's up to DoJ..FBI just investigates the issue. In which case, Comey's report should have indicated all the breaches of law...hard stop. DoJ could then decide what to do with it. This was a concocted ploy to put an end to this, prior to the election, and give the DoJ an easy out of the mess, all while absolving Hillary in the process.
3. The Whistleblower incident
a. The laws on first hand knowledge being required for whisteblowers magically change immediately before the whistleblower report...and by the same agency the whistleblower comes from? You really think that's a coincidence? If so...why?
b. The whistleblower relying on numerous other sources rather than first hand evidence. ie, someone in our intelligence agency going around gathering hearsay about the POTUS, likely talking with like minded (ie, NTers) individuals, all in an attempt to undermine the POTUS, and achieve the Democratic stated goal, since he was elected, of bringing this to impeachment? What exactly is so tin hat about this, unless one just believes, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, that our DoJ just wouldn't stoop to this?
c. The rush to impeach when this came out, even before it actually came out (how did THAT happen, exactly?). The timeline alone demonstrates fairly conclusively this was a concerted effort between the Democratic party and our intelligence agencies. Quite easily to theorize that it was coordinated many months prior, at the beginning, in fact. Unassailable that there was collusion afterwards, given the timeline.
4. Why no investigation of Hillary reaching out to Ukraine requesting their help in digging up dirt on Trump (this is documented)? and why, given that, is that no big deal when Trump inquiring about it, possibly implying this type of activity is a HUGE problem? If the one is ok, why then is the other just the most outrageous thing imaginable? Why did the DoJ not investigate this, unless they were 'in' on it?
5. The timing of the release of this, and the rush to being impeachment investigations. Then including Pompeo and others, who were leading the investigation of improprieties such as the one above...in a concerted effort to thwart those investigations (the threats of witness tampering and other things, ostensibly to make things 'fair' (if you really believe the Dems suddenly are interested in fairness here, well, I can't change that then), but does that not serve the purpose of thwarting those ongoing investigations? This whole thing then also casts shade on the things likely to come out in Barr's report. You really think this is all just an amazing set of coincidences?

You might see this as tin hat...but there is a very real potential issue here, which DWARFS the phone call Trump had with Ukraine (in addition to actually explaining it) All very easy to believe on the surface (which isn't by accident), but lots of unsavory stuff beneath. If you follow my posts on here, I'm pretty consistent in saying politicians of all ilks aren't stupid, and that there are generally underlying motivations behind what they are doing that are quite different than what they say publicly. I'm not really the tin hat hat type--would you agree with that? If so...can you see how there are just way too many issues here to not at least question what the motivations involved are? And how those then factor into what Trump was doing in the phone call with Ukraine? There have been concerns about the DoJ and its role/bias for quite some time now...going back to the Clinton Presidency. Washington is full of liberals...you find it unreasonable that there are lots of liberals in the DoJ? And that that then sways their judgement and actions---particularly when the evidence of this is so clear? Given that...and the ramifications this potentially has....is it really that outlandish to question these things?

Maybe if I ask a simple question: why do you think there was such a rush to get the impeachment inquiry started, before even seeing the report? Does that seem normal, or fair, to you? Do you really think there weren't other factors leading to that happening?

 

That's fair, but the analogy I was making is that if what Clinton did then, with 7 definitive laws he broke, per the independent investigation, wasn't impeachment worthy, then not really seeing how what Trump did here, which is at best the appearance of impropriety (hard to prove intent) is greater.

if the argument is he is underming the election! Well, the Dems have been doing that for the past 2 1/2 years, so that rings awfully hollow. In fact, Hillary herself, and this is documented, reached out to Ukraine for digging up dirt on Trump. If that was ok...why is it so terrible now? Especially when the sequence of events like this then give Trump a perfectly valid reason to reach out to Ukraine and say 'hey, could you help us investigate this?'. Which also ignores that Ukraine (and Australia) offered such assistance to start with.

 

Documented like pizza parlor documented or like documented in an independent FBI investigation where she admits to saying do us a favor and investigate Trump?

Oh I'm pretty sure telling the Russians he doesn't care about election meddling and not pursuing election security as a White House initiative is undermining the election already but in this case he literally admitted telling a head of state to do us a favor and investigate his political rival after withholding $400m in aid and having his people prepare the Ukranians for his request to investigate Biden. Considering Trump's 50 years of behavior there's little need to step far to see the connection.

 

Non-sequitur much?

 

Hey Carnegie, it's called context.

Like equating marrying a 14 year old in 1819 vs 2019. Context.

 

Documented in the official records at the Ukranian embassy.

Article discussing the various interferences

Again...the entire Russia thing was a contrived political ploy...so why the anger here?

He's asking them to investigate a KNOWN problem, impacting the United States. Which is...his job and duty? To borrow I believe it was DaDakota's words...all Biden and son had to do was not do this, and its a non issue. Nothing to investigate then. We seem to be looking at the wrong end of this. That we are is then also the impetus and reason for Trump to make said inquiries.

Was he probably very upset that this involved Biden? No, probably not. Is that a crime? No, not at all.

Let me ask you this: Trump had no concern at all about running against Biden. Why would it be necessary to use a foreign power to dig up dirt on him, then?

Trump's 50 years of behavior are both mostly unknown to you, and irrelevant here.

What IS relevant is Nadler's decrying overturning the results of an election through the impeachment process, as well as Biden.
And the Democrats stated positions about impeaching Trump ever since he was elected as well as their using the exact same tactics, on a much large scale, against him.

Considering all that , there's no need at all to step far to see the connection.

 

Impeachment is a constitutional check the legislature has when it comes to the executive or judicial branch possibly breaking the law.

It's the same Constitution that allowed Trump to win through the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.

This is not a coup by General Pelosi or Admiral Schumer.

Hell, there will still be a Republican in office so I'm not sure how that result is overturned.

What would be changed is if the Senate convicts him. Highly unlikely, given the circus.

The only real question an average voter should ask is whether this affects your vote in 2020. Whether the charges are true and Trump is breaking laws.

Accusing the other side of rigging the system when they're using procedures set by the Constitution is counterintuitive, but here we are

 

I hope you understand why presidents don't micromanage and tell our federal law enforcement arms whom to investigate. We aren't a banana republic. The FBI and DOJ have big boys and big girls. If there was "there there" with Biden, they would independently go through the proper channels such as requesting warrants through FISA courts. No need for the president to direct them. Remember, members of Trump's campaign were being investigated due to probable cause (an idiot publicly stating about DNC emails being hacked before it was common knowledge)
They requested warrants through proper channels for surveillance. At no point was Obama personally directing them to investigate Trump's campaign because again we are not a banana republic and our president doesn't get to use his powers to investigate political opponents for his own benefit.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that Trump's desire to investigate Biden and extort Ukraine with military aid was for personal political gain.

1. He sent his personal lawyer and 2 other Fox News tv lawyers who were not a part of the administration to Ukraine.

2. He froze military aid to Ukraine which had bipartisan support without informing allies or relevant members of Congress or his own staff. So it was obvious that it was his personal decision for personal reasons.

3. His own staff tried to convince him that the Biden/Ukraine conspiracy was just that... A conspiracy.

4. He learned about said conspiracy not from intelligence briefings or FBI investigators but from a segment on Sean Hannity's show.

Again, this is not me telling you that we shouldn't investigate politicians who do corrupt things. I'm telling you we shouldn't do investigations of politicians led by rival politicians because again we are not a Banana Republic. Not only is it an abuse of power, citizens lose trust in the Justice system for politicians when they are being lead by rival politicians.

Do you understand this?

 

First the free press was invalid...then law enforcement & intel...now the legislature...judiciary has to be next, right?

 

Once again I see people claiming this whole "Russia thing" was a hoax. Forgetting again that Trump's campaign and his own son were excited to meet with Russian agents when they promised dirt on Clinton, that Russians did hack the DNC following Trump's call for them to do so, that the Trump was desperate to get a Moscow Trump tower project, and that there are people sitting in jail because of the Mueller investigation (9 convictions, more than 3 dozen indictments including Russians, and over $45 million in fines).

I doubt those still claiming this is a hoax will do so, but read the whole Mueller Report. While Mueller concludes that Trump's campaign didn't reach the level of a criminal conspiracy there is no doubt that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, tried again in 2018 and are planning on doing so in 2020. While Trump didn't conspire with them he certainly welcomed their interference. That is definitive and exhaustively documented in the report.

 

...it's the way to go to set up a monarchy.

 

It is very strange the do double standard for proof.

Despite mountains of evidence in the Ukrainian matter and Trump verbally describing himself committing the crime, it isn't proven. Also fine maybe Trump did something wrong but not like Biden. Look at how horrible he is and the corruption there. Of course Biden and his son were already investigated and they found no evidence of wrongdoing. They literally have zero evidence but are willing to convict Joe. Completely crazy.

 

...at least it's consistently crazy.

...I mean, it's not exactly like keeping time with a broken watch...
...this stuff is always timely!

 

Also this:

 

A few immediate observations: "daily caller". "September 13".

Here's the final Senate report, released yesterday by republican senator grassley:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/state-department-clinton-email-server/index.html

btw,

IVANKA TRUMP, JARED KUSHNER AND EVERY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ACCUSED OF USING PERSONAL EMAIL FOR WORK
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-officials-private-email-ivanka-jared-kushner-betsy-devos-1449556