Some Republicans wait for guidance

  • Thread starter Thread starter IQ170
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Woodyl57 said:
None of has been disproven sounds suspect
Click to expand...
Some of it has been shown to be off the mark. But the thrust of Russian interference has been shown to be true, and the thrust of Trump collusion is also true although the evidence did not show that this had reached a criminal level.
Woodyl57 said:
no issues with determining if the government abused its power
Click to expand...
No issues. Sadly, whatever comes out of Barr’s DOJ will be suspect, given his partisan fumbling of the Mueller report, and further partisan work shielding the POTUS.
Woodyl57 said:
I mean come one! James Comey comes out and tells us
Click to expand...
Clinton was investigated. The evidence gathered was insufficient to reach the standards for prosecution.
The FISA warrants were made to further an investigation (albeit one not specifically targeting Trump) The evidence gathered led to many indictments and convictions. The evidence gathered on Trump was insufficient to reach the standards for prosecution, at least in the case of conspiracy. (The case of obstruction seems to be more connected to the DoJ policy of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS.)

Seems very even to me.
 
dvdjs said:
Some of it has been shown to be off the mark. But the thrust of Russian interference has been shown to be true, and the thrust of Trump collusion is also true although the evidence did not show that this had reached a criminal level.
Click to expand...
stop moving your goal posts.

Specific to the dossier, what incriminating parts have been proven true. The standard is not guilty until proven innocent, though you seem to favor that approach when it suits you.

Don’t deflect by referring to other Russian interference.
 
Woodyl57 said:
Of course it does. That doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Click to expand...
There were investigation of Clinton. There was the Mueller investigation. Neither have been charged.
I have posted about Saucier in some detail - easy to search. His lawyers, and Clinton bashers, tried to make a parallel, but scomarison was specious. And the judge didn’t buy it at all.
 
dvdjs said:
Sadly, whatever comes out of Barr’s DOJ will be suspect, given his partisan fumbling of the Mueller report, and further partisan work shielding the POTUS.
Click to expand...
I do understand the suspicion Democrats have with partisanship from Barr. I don’t understand how they honestly think Lynch and Holder didn’t have a partisan bend as well. You may suspect the results of the Barrs investigation, but I suspect the results of the Clinton investigation for the same reason. You can at the very least understand why?
 
Woodyl57 said:
suspect the results of the Barrs investigation, but I suspect the results of the Clinton investigation for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Investigations are about evidence. I don’t mind the usual partisan bent in their focus (can’t be avoided) so long as they are focused on real evidence and actual crimes of import.
 
I agree to an extent as long as the partisan bent doesn’t suppress evidence or apply the law unfairly.

My response here is to point out the partisan bent goes both ways and it isn’t responsible to fear that bent from Barr and dismiss it from Lynch or Holder.

Thanks
 
Woodyl57 said:
You may suspect the results of the Barrs investigation,
Click to expand...
It was suspect mostly because Trump fired Sessions the day after the midterms knowing he would be facing a Democratic House without any protection. Barr has managed to bumble his way through the Senate hearings and declined House testimony incurring contempt charges. All done for Trump.
 
Last edited:
Sessions technically resigned. I know, the story is he was forced to but these technicalities in the law are important when trying to defend your side (ie the discussion on criminality of Joe Bidens dealing with Ukraine, etc. apparently he was bragging about coercing a government but a government entity or something slightly different so its ok).

Barr of course bumbled through the Senate hearing from your perspective, people from the other perspective believe he did wonderfully. Of course Barr is protecting Trump, but Lynch and Comey weren’t protecting Clinton obviously, right?

You are making my point and the only way to really square it is to either admit we all have our biases and our assumptions are based on those or you have to admit you just think the other side is stupid for not seeing “the obvious”.

Maybe Barr is protecting Trump. I think he certainly has his political leanings, but he also has a long and respectable career and I think it just may be possible, just maybe, that he is following the law.
 
Whatever you say.

1.) Barr and the republicans are obviously trying to protect Trump while he runs his criminal schemes.

2.) Lynch and Holder being Democrats only cared about the well being of their country.

3.) Comey sabotaged Clinton and now hates Trump because he has had an epiphany.

Got it.
 
Woodyl57 said:
Barr and the republicans are obviously trying to protect Trump while he runs his criminal schemes.
Click to expand...
Is this in doubt? More than half the country wants him out of office, including a lot of Republicans.
 
It is when you see the other side as abusing their power and harassing people.

I’m just saying you seem to have a problem seeing the viewpoint of the other side and I get the feeling everything is obvious to you. I get it, and I will admit the conversations on here have had me looking at myself and trying to understand more the other perspective.
 
upant said:
Biden was bragging about getting someone fired for investigating the company his son is associated with.
Click to expand...
No, Biden was bragging about getting someone fired that most of the European leaders also wanted to see get fired for corruption. And the “investigation” you refer to was dormant at the time, and even when the investigation was active, it was narrowly focused on a period of time before Hunter Biden joined the organization. The prosecutor was fired for not investigating the corruption that was rampant in Ukraine.
 
Nice article. Trump bad, Democrat good.

I said I get it. I just don’t agree with.

Trump is no angel. But I find it hard to believe these Democrats are all the sudden quoting the constitution. I guess it serves their purpose this time around. Go ahead, though. Send in the captial police as Tlaib says they are talking about and slap handcuffs on them all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top