Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
Wow...you don't know your history.
|
I think that the participants in this thread should start playing a drinking game where we drink every time you start a post with a rude, sarcastic, or condescending line.
And it is you who is not adequately drawing your situational analogies, rooted in history. See below.
Quote:
|
Watergate was investigated for a LONG TIME before indictments came down. Longer than this investigation.
|
Watergate was started with evidence. This was started with none; only with purchased Russian "intel" and subsequent MSM and Dem fits.
There's your pertinent history.
Quote:
|
I assume you are in favor of the rule of law? That is all this is. Nothing in this is outside the law. This is the normal course of events for someone being investigated for bank & wire fraud, which are felonies.
|
Sure, says the person who condones every manner of institutional partisan bias and the purchase of Russian (dis)information to bring down POTUS. You're very credible. And this doesn't look the way that your spin demands to much of the nation, which is ultimately what is important for there to be perceived that there is a legitimate democracy and a lack of corruption in our system.
And who are you trying to convince, exactly? This looks how it looks, compeltely due to the actions of the Democrats and their supporters from before the election until now. You aren't going to convince me, nor others. You are self-soothing. That's the sum effect of your rants.
Quote:
|
A host of people had to review this before it was executed. They either signed off on it or didn't stop it. That means there must be strong evidence there.
|
I read this from you before, and I responded. You're repetitive.
Quote:
|
The Russia investigation didn't start by the Democrats, and didn't start out of the blue, hunting for something. It started precisely BECAUSE in the investigation into Russia hacking our democracy, evidence was run across to indicate collusion of the Trump team with Russia for htat purpos.
|
Perfect. You prove my point precisely. Thank you.
That story is seen as an utterly partisan anti-Trump narrative by half of the nation. You do know that, correct?
The so called "hacking of our democracy" by thirteen facebook advertisers is widely and correctly seen as an invented narrative by the anti-Trump MSM and other such institutions, a perception that was entirely and rightly founded by the fact that these same people lost their minds running up to the election to try to get Hillary elected.
Moreover, the failure in their supposed responsibility for objectivity in politics by these institutions is also seen as "hacking our democracy" by the Right. You do know that as well, do you not?
Claims that some facbeook advertisers "hacked our democracy" when the MSM became the propaganda arm of the DNC for that election (and now permanently), and the NAtSec apparatus came out against Trump, and Strzok and Page were explicitly politically biased, among so much else, reads as a cover-up to half of the nation.
Quote:
|
THAT'S WHY there is an investigation. Don't expect Trump to admit that.
|
We're only expecting you to keep lighting yourselves and our system on fire.
Quote:
|
You don't remember the meeting of Trump Jr, Manafort, Kushner & others with Russian operatives for the purpose of getting dirt on Clinton?
|
As opposed to the Steel Dossier, based on Russian info, that was improperly used for the FISA warrant and as political currency to start the special investigation? Your selective memory is what is eroding this nation's democratic foundation.
Quote:
|
You don't remember all the phone conversations that Flynn was having with the Russians promising to not execute the U S sanctions against Russia? Or the other crimes by Flynn? How 'bout the crimes by Trump's campaign manager, Manafort?) Also, it expanded into obstruction of justice (which is a crime), when Trump tried to shut down the investigation by firing Comey, demanding his personal loyalty outside of the law, and other acts. Not the behavior of an innocent person.
|
And so your rhetorical strategy is now to throw multiple issues at the wall, with rife mischaracterizations, which would all require their own threads to discuss as an effort to argue the current topic? Given all of your repetition, your frequent over-emotional personal attacks, and this it can only be concluded that you're really bad at this.
Quote:
|
This is the rule of law proceeding. It is possible that Mueller will conclude there's not enough evidence to prove collusion or obstruction. He'll do a report to Rosenstein laying out what he's found.
|
Repetition.
Quote:
|
Until the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, anyone working against it is working against our laws applying to everyone. No one is above the law.
|
Ok, Joe Law. Except for Clinton. And except for the entirety of the invented narratives and paid for Russian disinformation that started this. And except for the fact that much of the nation sees your myopic and extremely desperate plan to unseat a duly elected POTUS as a vicious violation of the public trust. That's political and social capital that will never return.
Quote:
|
Many people who had voted for Clinton, incl myself, did not blame the investigators for pursuing impeachment against Clinton. We knew the motives behind it, and knew that Republicans would not pursue that, if it were a Republican President. But motives notwithstanding, Clinton himself was responsible for the mess and the investigation. And so it is with Trump and his team. THEY are responsible. But Trump will go to his grave with the words "witch hunt" on his lips, knowing that his blind, ignorant supporters will believe him.
|
You're not a smart person to be so over-emotional and insulting when attempting to be convincing or credible.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
