LMAO That’s one interpretation.
Or course the Russian interference started in 2014. Why didn’t anyone tell Trump this was going on during the canpaign?!?
If this was real they would have. They were spying!
Watch and learn.
And ummm, OJ was found not guilty. He was not found innocent.
Rookie.
From CNN:
The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.
The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump”.
Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama’s estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.
Obama’s supporters claim he did stand up to Russia by deploying sanctions after the election to punish them for their actions. But, Obama, according to the Washington Post, “approved a modest package… with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.” In other words, a toothless response to a serious incursion.
A legitimate question Republicans are asking is whether the potential “collusion” narrative was invented to cover up the Obama administration’s failures. Two years have been spent fomenting the idea that Russia only interfered because it had a willing, colluding partner: Trump. Now that Mueller has popped that balloon, we must ask why this collusion narrative was invented in the first place.
Given Obama’s record on Russia, one operating theory is that his people needed a smokescreen to obscure just how wrong they were. They’ve blamed Trump. They’ve even blamed Mitch McConnell, in some twisted attempt to deflect blame to another branch of government.
But the Mueller report makes it clear that the Russian interference failure was Obama’s alone. He was the commander-in-chief when all of this happened. He arguably chose to prioritize his relationship with Putin vis-à-vis Iran over pushing back against Russian election interference that had been going on for at least two years.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
LMAO That’s one interpretation.
Or course the Russian interference started in 2014. Why didn’t anyone tell Trump this was going on during the canpaign?!?
If this was real they would have. They were spying!
Watch and learn.
God you're pathetic.
I posted 3 articles to prove the FBI and other intelligence agencies did inform Trump during the campaign.
The fact you're A) still not aware of this, B) you already brought this up and I proved you wrong and posted proof, and C) the fact you're back repeating the same lies just proves what a delusional dumbass you are.
"Watch and learn". Oh I did. It's like arguing with a senile old man with dementia. Watched you repeat the same false bullshit and learn nothing after I already debunked it the first time around. You literally have no shame and can't stop embarrassing yourself, kind of a common Trump supporter syndrome.
Stick to mopping floors and reddit threads, reality and current events are not in your wheelhouse.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
From CNN:
The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.
The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump”.
Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama’s estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.
Obama’s supporters claim he did stand up to Russia by deploying sanctions after the election to punish them for their actions. But, Obama, according to the Washington Post, “approved a modest package… with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.” In other words, a toothless response to a serious incursion.
A legitimate question Republicans are asking is whether the potential “collusion” narrative was invented to cover up the Obama administration’s failures. Two years have been spent fomenting the idea that Russia only interfered because it had a willing, colluding partner: Trump. Now that Mueller has popped that balloon, we must ask why this collusion narrative was invented in the first place.
Given Obama’s record on Russia, one operating theory is that his people needed a smokescreen to obscure just how wrong they were. They’ve blamed Trump. They’ve even blamed Mitch McConnell, in some twisted attempt to deflect blame to another branch of government.
But the Mueller report makes it clear that the Russian interference failure was Obama’s alone. He was the commander-in-chief when all of this happened. He arguably chose to prioritize his relationship with Putin vis-à-vis Iran over pushing back against Russian election interference that had been going on for at least two years.
LOL an editorial from Scott Jennings, who was Mitch McConnell's campaign advisor.
Funny he forgot Obama put sanctions on Russia in response, and while he claims they were weak, Trump's administration moved to LIFT them in response, proving that obviously Trump was rewarding them.
And when Obama approached McConnell to issue a bipartisan response McConnell rolled over and did nothing.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
Don’t be this silly.
He was EXONERATED for collusion with Russia. He said it as an innocent man! The end of his presidency - a special counsel investigation and the complicit media - interferes with his ability to perform his job. An innocent man would declare that too.
Fucking Mueller said it was an emotional declaration and not collusion.
Because innocent people declare themselves guilty and caught just because they're being investigated??
Because you think the media will somehow influence the evidence that would be shown to a grand jury?
Oh I get it, you think the legal system operates on a popularity vote and the media would vote him out of his reality TV show Apprentice President ...
Jesus H Christ
LMAO
There's no amount of bullshit you can't swallow or spin to your narrative.
Kingbash was right. Pointless to discuss anything with you.
Quote: @KingBash said:
Holy shit, there are times I honestly don't think I belong in America.
Given the state of California and your People's Republic of Santa Monica, I would contend you're already not in 'Merica. :p
We normal 'Merkins shouldn't be greedy, tho. We got one great 'Merkin from Samohi. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p...story.html
You're a smart/witty guy...had hopes we might flip you. Oh well.
I'd rhetorically ask "how fucking retarded are you people," but you'd whine about language/insults, claim victory because of that, and walk away.
You indeed called me a silly tard earlier in this thread. I lol'd. You flatter yourself, that we get that offended.
Jesus Christ...
was nailed to a cross on this day many years ago. Thanks for the reminder. 
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ KingBash said:
Holy shit, there are times I honestly don't think I belong in America.
Given the state of California and your People's Republic of Santa Monica, I would contend you're already not in 'Merica. :p
We normal 'Merkins shouldn't be greedy, tho. We got one great 'Merkin from Samohi. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p...story.html
You're a smart/witty guy...had hopes we might flip you. Oh well.
I'd rhetorically ask "how fucking retarded are you people," but you'd whine about language/insults, claim victory because of that, and walk away.
You indeed called me a silly tard earlier in this thread. I lol'd. You flatter yourself, that we get that offended.
Jesus Christ...
was nailed to a cross on this day many years ago. Thanks for the reminder.
Getting called retarded by these guys is as much a compliment as Einstein calling us geniuses!
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
And you completely ignore how he got his job - by writing a 20 page memo that exonerated Trump before he ever saw any evidence. That's why Trump fired Sessions and hired Barr, because Barr already promised to shield him against obstruction charges.
But ither than that, yeah he had no bias. LMAO
Jesus Pumpf, your selective blindness along with A1 is staggering.
No point in discussing evidence in plain sight when you choose to pretend to not use common sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but Trump was trying to get rid of Sessions for a long time... wasn't he? So your characterization of this doesn't seem to be accurate. Now, it could be that Trump DID choose Barr because he believed that Barr would be the best AG for him. Unfortunately, you lost all credibility when you mis-characterized how it happened.
Of course, Trump wouldn't be the first president to pick an AG who was friendly to him... and who would defend him at all costs. Seems like we just had a guy like that not that long ago. I think his name was Eric Holder. And I don't remember you- or anyone else on "your side"- saying anything about it back then. That doesn't make it right when Trump does it. But it DOES mean that your "outrage" is selective and not really concerned about right-and-wrong... or what's best for America. By excusing other presidents... and barking about Trump... it really does come across as hypocritical, partisan, faux concern. Oh well... to each their own.
By the way, I'm still waiting for proof that- prior to all this Trump stuff- Barr was ever anything but a highly regarded public servant. Somehow- now, when he doesn't tell you what you want to hear- he's evil. Funny: you guys said the same thing about Mueller... when HE didn't deliver the goods you were looking for. I get the feeling that- if Mother Teresa said something to defend Trump, you'd call HER a partisan hack, too. At some point, your accusations lose all credibility... which might be why Trump is probably going to get re-elected (despite all the baggage). You guys have cried wolf so often... that even if you managed to get something right: no one would care anymore. It just makes me wonder what you guys are really hoping to accomplish? Is your hatred of Trump just virtue-signaling: showing how smart and compassionate and woke you are? Because if you're trying to get someone else elected, you're doing a really bad job of it.
SFVF-- you keep bringing up Barr's memo where he proffered an opinion on "obstruction".
You bring up so much that's easy to deflect, but would take so much time, not worth it. Plus, A1's doing a pretty good job.
But I must address how wrong you are about this.
You know who else agreed with Barr, on the subject, and also opined?
liberals:
Jonathon Turley -- https://www.newsmatwitter.com/politics/t...id/886385/
Alan Dershowitz -- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...risis.html
Mark Penn -- https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38...ect-us-all
Point is... the "obstruction" part of Mueller's investigation has always been specious.
At the least, it's been a fascinating legal question that 'both sides' have been debating for months.
What's wrong with fancy lawyers offering opinions? They make big $$ to flex their intellectual muscles.
As pumpf has pointed out, there is NO proof Barr is a wild-eyed ideologue, ever in his history.
I do understand your points and understand you're 'sore'. But you're dead WRONG.
I could give examples of Clinton/Reno and Obama/Holder, that are much more egregious.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
Hey genius,
The Special counsel was triggered when Trump fired the FBI Director, a Republican, for refusing to stop investigating him and his criminal pal Flynn, despite being warned Flynn was compromised by former Attorney General Sally Yates, who Trump fired after she informed him Flynn was dirty. Such great morals.
Comey was indeed a Republican. Appointed by Obama. Being a swamp creature >> Repub? (same could be valid for Rosenstein, McCabe & others)
Coincidence Comey's wife/family's political leanings? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...llary.html
Comey's leaked memos to his professor friend initiated the Special Prosecutor. Comey said so!
Mueller found Trump stating "can you take it easy on Flynn? he's a good guy" was NOT actionable.
And finally, interim AG Yates was fired when she refused to implement the fictitious Trump "muslim ban", nothing to do with Flynn.
Even CNN said so. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/...index.html
(side note: who tweeted support to Yates' insubordination? Team Mueller's Weissman. https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...ally-yates Yeah.... he's an impartial prosecutor. SMDH.)
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ A1Janitor said:
Don’t be this silly.
He was EXONERATED for collusion with Russia. He said it as an innocent man! The end of his presidency - a special counsel investigation and the complicit media - interferes with his ability to perform his job. An innocent man would declare that too.
Fucking Mueller said it was an emotional declaration and not collusion.
Because innocent people declare themselves guilty and caught just because they're being investigated??
OMG. He (Trump) did not say he was guilty, he was lamenting the fact a Special Prosecutor was appointed.
Was that good news? Perfectly normal reaction.
BTW, how do we KNOW that was a perfectly normal reaction?
Trump swore NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. Google "what POTUS's have demanded executive privilege"
Unprecedented executive branch cooperation/transparency.
The ONLY REASON that line..."I'm fucked" made the record, was Trump allowed unfettered access.
Because you think the media will somehow influence the evidence that would be shown to a grand jury?
Oh I get it, you think the legal system operates on a popularity vote and the media would vote him out of his reality TV show Apprentice President ...
Jesus H Christ
LMAO
|
