Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
Let me point out a real-life example of how things worked...

When the Democrats were developing the Affordable Care Act, they had hours of public hearings. They engaged the republicans to get their input (even incorporating some of their suggestions.) And in the end they voted against it. When the Republicans tried to introduce their own bill last year, they did so with no input from the Democrats, and attempted to cram the bill through congress.

So no, the level of partisanship by the Democrats and the Republicans is nowhere near equivalent. And if the Democrats have become less willing to work with the republicans, well, I think things like the health care act and the tax bill (another piece of legislation that was crammed through by republicans with little public debate) shows that there's no real point in trying to work with the republicans. Democrats tried. Republicans said "We're not interested in working with you".
Click to expand...

It's simple to point out the hypocrisy. Sort these votes by narrowest margin.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Let me point out a real-life example of how things worked...

When the Democrats were developing the Affordable Care Act, they had hours of public hearings. They engaged the republicans to get their input (even incorporating some of their suggestions.) And in the end they voted against it. When the Republicans tried to introduce their own bill last year, they did so with no input from the Democrats, and attempted to cram the bill through congress.

So no, the level of partisanship by the Democrats and the Republicans is nowhere near equivalent. And if the Democrats have become less willing to work with the republicans, well, I think things like the health care act and the tax bill (another piece of legislation that was crammed through by republicans with little public debate) shows that there's no real point in trying to work with the republicans. Democrats tried. Republicans said "We're not interested in working with you".
Click to expand...

Dem: "Ok so let's work together on project A"
Rep: "Sure. Here are my suggestions."
Dem: "Ok so let's put that to a vote. Yea."
Rep: "Nay. **** you."
Dem: "What?"
Rep: "Ok, shoe's on the other foot now. We vote yea on project B."
Dem: "Wait, what about us?"
Rep: "**** you."
Dem: "Ok, shoe's back on our foot now. You won't get a say on project C."
Rep: "See how Democrats refuse to meet us half way?"
 
Belz... said:
Dem: "Ok so let's work together on project A"
Rep: "Sure. Here are my suggestions."
Dem: "Ok so let's put that to a vote. Yea."
Rep: "Nay. **** you."
Dem: "What?"
Rep: "Ok, shoe's on the other foot now. We vote yea on project B."
Dem: "Wait, what about us?"
Rep: "**** you."
Dem: "Ok, shoe's back on our foot now. You won't get a say on project C."
Rep: "See how Democrats refuse to meet us half way?"
Click to expand...
I think this cartoon says it all.

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/470555861050639931/
 
River said:
So no, the level of partisanship by the Democrats and the Republicans is nowhere near equivalent. And if the Democrats have become less willing to work with the republicans, well, I think things like the health care act and the tax bill (another piece of legislation that was crammed through by republicans with little public debate) shows that there's no real point in trying to work with the republicans. Democrats tried. Republicans said "We're not interested in working with you".
Click to expand...
It's simple to point out the hypocrisy. Sort these votes by narrowest margin.
Click to expand...
What exactly was your point in that? You pointed to data about voting margins in congress... what exactly do you think that does to prove your point?
 
River said:
How about those appointments Trump is getting so easily approved for his agendas? Yeah. There's that.
Click to expand...
Again, lets look at a little history, shall we?

The republicans made it a point to oppose EVERYTHING Obama did.... Every-damn-thing. They refused to confirm judges that Obama nominated, cumulating in the refusal to even have hearings for Garland (a judge that republicans CLAIMED they liked.)

And Trump's appointments? Given the fact that he has nominated or appointed
- Cabinet members who don't know what their department does (e.g. Rick Perry, Department of Energy), who have actually been arrested (Flynn), or are just plain unqualified
- Judges whom the bar association has considered poor choices, and/or who couldn't even answer simple legal questions
Perhaps the problem is less with Democrats being overly partisan and more with the quality of individuals that Trump has been nominating

(Note that when it is an actual competent person, like Mattis, Democratic senators are likely to vote to confirm.)
 
Aber said:
Absolutely not - this is about the UK getting annoyed that some blabbermouths in the US released sensitive information to the press.
Click to expand...
Not sure why they would be annoyed about that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ssified-information-russia-white-house-report

I mean the U.S. is their ally

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/biggest-trump-leaks-180906193313639.html

And the Trump administration runs a really tight ship when it comes to dealing with sensitive information.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nuclear-submarine-north-korea-duterte-philippines-2017-5

They would never disclose information that was provided by an ally.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/leaked-pictures-show-bomb-used-manchester-attack/
 
Trump tweets

"Is it really possible that Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie was paid by Simpson and GPS Fusion for work done on the Fake Dossier, and who was used as a Pawn in this whole SCAM (WITCH HUNT), is still working for the Department of Justice????? Can this really be so?????"

“Conflict between Glen Simpson’s testimony to another House Panel about his contact with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. Ohr was used by Simpson and Steele as a Back Channel to get (FAKE) Dossier to FBI. Simpson pleading Fifth.” Catherine Herridge. Where is Jeff Sessions?"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"Is it really possible that Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie was paid by Simpson and GPS Fusion for work done on the Fake Dossier, and who was used as a Pawn in this whole SCAM (WITCH HUNT), is still working for the Department of Justice????? Can this really be so?????"....
Click to expand...

I don't know, DONNY GRAPE JUICE*, you're asking me? You're the ******* President. Why don't you fire him?



*It's only for today folks, I promise. Just go with it.

 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"Is it really possible that Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie was paid by Simpson and GPS Fusion for work done on the Fake Dossier, and who was used as a Pawn in this whole SCAM (WITCH HUNT), is still working for the Department of Justice????? Can this really be so?????"

“Conflict between Glen Simpson’s testimony to another House Panel about his contact with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. Ohr was used by Simpson and Steele as a Back Channel to get (FAKE) Dossier to FBI. Simpson pleading Fifth.” Catherine Herridge. Where is Jeff Sessions?"
Click to expand...

the White House doctor should really do a better job of regulating his meds.
 
There has been very little news or info coming out of the Mueller camp recently. Is this a reason for those under investigation to start worrying?
 
Steve said:
There has been very little news or info coming out of the Mueller camp recently. Is this a reason for those under investigation to start worrying?
Click to expand...

The reason is that Mueller is playing by a DOJ directive that aims to prevent investigations from impacting an election.
We doubt the Mueller show will pick up the pace after the Midterms.
 
River said:
I agree about derailment of the thread, but it needs to be said that there is ample proof of Clintons lies regarding the emails.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the difference between lying and lying to the FBI? The former is not a crime. The latter is. The latter is what Flynn is being prosecuted for and what you claimed Clinton should be prosecuted for.

If you want to make the case that Clinton should be prosecuted for, and I'll quote you directly here, "Lying to the FBI" then the evidence you need to demonstrate that she's guilty of "Lying to the FBI" is evidence that she is guilty of "Lying to the FBI". Not just of "Lying" which, as I've noted, is not a crime, let alone a federal one.

As for Flynn, I think we should wait until Mueller is done. (and that goes for the rest of those indicted) More charges could come, and more information can become available. We're still waiting on key documents that have been stonewalled for months from congress. When the OIG is finished, hopefully the American people will get to see what really happened to begin this thing. Not either sides spun version of it.
Click to expand...

This doesn't address what I said.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1052325617365069824

BREAKING: Trump tells AP his former attorney Cohen was "lying" when he testified that Trump directed him to break the law.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1052345348772061184

Trump is accusing his own lawyer of lying during an in-court allocution, while telling America Cohen *wasn't* lying when he told The Huffington Post in an interview that he only spoke with Trump about the Trump-Rozov deal for a Trump Tower Moscow for "four minutes total" in 2015
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom