Politics

Blue&White
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:50 pm

PittGradPSUMad wrote:Conventional wisdom holds that Fredo should have contacted the FBI about interference by "enemies of the state" instead of licking his chops and shooting emails to all manner of trump campaign officials about having the goods on HRC.


I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe it's true that Wiki was working with the Russians to get their information (which Wikileaks vehemently denies, and perhaps they did and they did not realize it), but the idea that Jr. had some kind of affirmative obligation to contact the FBI because someone contact with him about potential opposition research on his father's election opponent is, to me, a stretch. Unless Wikileaks said or shared something that, in and of itself, seemed to be a violation of law, then I don't see the problem here.

The Republicans and the Democrats had no problem looking at shady sources to get the goods on Sr. That dossier that was commissioned (originally by the Republicans) and came up with the stories about Trump watching Russian hookers pee on themselves was information that supposedly came from Russian sources. The nub of that claim was that Trump was compromised due to information the Russians had on him. Whatever is true or not true in that document, it had to have been the result of dealing with some shady people. And, I don't recall anyone complaining that first the Republicans and then the Democrats didn't alert the FBI about potential interference by a foreign power when they came into possession of this information. So, I'm back to: I don't get it.

I think Donald Trump jr. is about as big a spoiled, entitled douchebag as I've ever seen. I find him to be more obnoxious than his father. Trump at least has accomplished something in his life and built a real estate empire. his children were just born lucky and don't seem to have the sense to realize that they are nothing on their own. I guess the point is that there are plenty of reasons to despise both Trump and his vile brood. There is no need to manufacture reasons, and, absent some concrete connection or implication of a criminal act, this is what this seems to me to be - a manufactured complaint.

JerseyLion
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:13 pm

Re: Politics

Postby JerseyLion » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:29 am

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio ... 1711150147

Shepard Smith pulling people away from the latest "shiny object."

Blue&White
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:45 am

I don't think the Uranium One issue is as clear cut as Smith is making it out to be. While it is a blatant lie that Clinton had some kind of ability to just award this stuff and it was a direct quid pro quo of money for the right to export uranium to this Russian company, it is also inaccurate to say she was no where in this picture and had no ability to exert influence. The money paid to the Clinton Foundation at the same time that was all done smells bad. It may be a coincidence with no connection. It may be that the money was given with the hopes that Hillary Clinton would use her considerable influence to push the vote their way. But, the whole thing looks off to me. That, in and of itself, should not be enough for a special prosecutor, and I saw that last night Sessions was basically backing off and said there needs to be some basis in fact before you can do that. I agree with that. The mere appearance of impropriety should not result in an a special prosecutor being appointed. It shouldn't. But, the FBI maybe asking a few questions? That I think is reasonable.

On the DNC stuff, I think Brazil's book and comments along should warrant an investigation, but what do I know?

sameoldlama
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:57 am

Clinton has a fully layered criminal organization that enacts these money laundering and influence pedaling schemes - and if you've been following the moving parts many of the people tied to her most recent scandals (Uranium One, buying off DNC, fixing FBI investigation, Trump dossier) are intermingled in multiple events and are also leading the Trump / Russia investigation.

She doesn't pull these things off alone and she alone doesn't benefit - and that's why you never stop hearing Trump / Russia because a good number of current and former federal employees were complicit in these schemes. And if any Republican other than Trump had won the election this would have all been left alone (you can bet there are some Rs complicit in this or various Washington entities would use the info as a marker for future leverage vs going public).

The hatred they have for DT partly stems in the fear that he is a man who can't be bargained with and is thus unpredictable and may expose the utter corruption infesting Washington. Not because DT is Mr. Smith goes to Washington and wants to "drain the swamp" but because he is so thin skinned and egotistical he won't play the go along get along game. he would rather burn down the WH before not responding to the most minor insult.

Blue&White
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:18 pm

There's a lot of guessing and innuendo in your post. None of that is proven. Sure, there is some smoke, but no one has every shown fire. I have no problem believing that Clinton did things knowing full well that money would then flow to her foundation. But, me having no problem believing it doesn't make it true. Jeff Sessions took some questions from some angry Republicans in yesterday's hearing who wanted to know why there had not yet been a special counsel appointed to investigate the various Clinton and DNC scandals that have been in the news. And, his answer was pretty clear - he's not doing anything to appoint a special counsel on Clinton and the DNC without a factual basis to do so. He specifically said "looks like" isn't going to cut it.

I don't know a whole lot about Jeff Sessions the person, but I'd be willing to wager he's no fan or friend of Hillary Clinton. So, if he's not willing to move her, I think it's fair to say the hard evidence against Clinton is pretty flimsy. Again, I have no problem believing she's dirty but that is probably because I want to believe it. It doesn't mean there is proof or even that it's true. I do think, though, that the evidence against Trump and the Russian collusion stuff was also pretty flimsy and not really factually based when that special counsel was appointed. That they have found evidence since the inquiry started doesn't really change the fact that the evidence didn't seem there at the start. Or, at least it wasn't based on what I saw in the press.

I agree with your last point 100%. Trump will blow the whole thing up before he will walk away quietly. No secret will be safe with him. And, why should it be? People have been leaking his stuff since the day he got there. I think at some point he's going to get even with a lot of people.

psu_dad
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:46 pm

I've never liked the paradigm of the two parties deciding who the POTUS candidates should be. It's like having the foxes decide who should guard the hen house. I've always thought all presidential candidates should have to disavow any party affiliation they have and run "at large". And when elected, they should act as ombudsman, advocating for the interests of the public, not their party.

The reason we keep going back & forth between Democrats and Republicans in charge is because they both stink on ice and there's no one to control them when they're in charge of both the WH and Congress. It's a rotten system.

Blue&White
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:55 pm

I am constantly amazed by people who feel some sort of allegiance to one party or the other. I absolutely get believing that one party or the other is more closely aligned with your views and voting for one, but I can never understand the allegiance some people have to one or the other. I cross back and forth constantly, and more often than not I am voting against someone as opposed to voting for someone.

It is what it is. I try, usually, not to get too upset about it. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I don't.

Blue&White
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:15 pm

Apparently 6 Democrats are demanding impeachment hearings. I am all for this, as long as they can run them starting now and ending by the start of the baseball season. There is nothing on TV for me until Opening Day so impeachment hearings would really fill that void.

sameoldlama
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:22 pm

HRC is certainly smart enough to have layered her kickback schemes to protect herself. Saw an interview with Alan Dershowtiz who stated in both the HRC and DT cases there was clearly "questionable behavior" but no clear evidence of criminal activity. The Trump folks aren't polished criminals like most career politicians so they seem to be pretty ham handed in terms of not thoroughly understanding the legal implications of their activity and how to cover them up - most of their gaffes results from ignorance. The Clintons are masters. I have exactly 0.00 doubt HRC was selling influence / taking bribes while SOS and laundering money through the Clinton Foundation for personal use. I also have 0.00 doubt that someone knowingly kept an illegal private server who deleted e-mails / torched hardware when an investigation was imminent that she later coerced authorities into backing off on is not about leave sign posts and blue prints detailing her crimes. Her actions are calculated and thought out.

DT is not more ethical than Hillary - not a bit - he simply lacks the criminal ability that HRC has spent a lifetime developing. But she has spent a lifetime as a conman who relied on a public persona to maintain public office - she had to hide her true colors to keep the con going. DT owned his own company and thus never felt the need to hide being a selfish jerk - HRC became duplicitous out of necessity. As I have been saying DT lies to protect his fragile ego - he's just your run of the mill neighborhood blowhard - only with lots of money and fame who was crafty enough to parlay it under the perfect circumstances to become POTUS. Any other election of our lifetime DT doesn't make out of the primary - and if he did would not have won the election. HRC was the only candidate in our lifetime he could beat - and fortunately for him that's who he ran against.

psu_dad
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:22 pm

Anyone see report half a dozen women have accused former POTUS Bush of groping them - that would be the elder. The California NAACP wants the National Anthem dropped because it's racist - I think your bowl of Cheerios is next on list.

Apparently, Senator Stuart Smalley is next.

Image