DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[Fru]

The difference is, she didn't win.

[BigRedBuster]

Oh...so party politics is now contingent upon if someone is President of the US.

 

I guess if a Democrat is Secretary of State, it's perfectly fine then.

[BigRedBuster]

How many Democrats were all on board to investigate the Whitewater scandal while Clintons were in office?

[commando]

they are both extremely in the wrong. the biggest difference now is that trump has the majority support in both congress and the senate right now so don't expect anything serious to come from it.

[Fru]

Oh...so party politics is now contingent upon if someone is President of the US.

 

I guess if a Democrat is Secretary of State, it's perfectly fine then.

 

To some degree, yes. Being President is kind of significant.

 

And regarding the Clinton Foundation. It was investigated.

 

"In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed that there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.

“It was not impressive,” one source said of the February presentation. “It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence — if you could even call it evidence to that point.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

[BigRedBuster]

they are both extremely in the wrong. the biggest difference now is that trump has the majority support in both congress and the senate right now so don't expect anything serious to come from it.

 

 

Oh...so party politics is now contingent upon if someone is President of the US.

 

I guess if a Democrat is Secretary of State, it's perfectly fine then.

 

To some degree, yes. Being President is kind of significant.

 

And regarding the Clinton Foundation. It was investigated.

 

"In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed that there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.

“It was not impressive,” one source said of the February presentation. “It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence — if you could even call it evidence to that point.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

 

 

 

That's not what was being discussed.

 

How many Democrats supported investigating any of these issues?

 

You accused Republicans of being spineless (which they are) and the comment was that the Democrats have been the same way....and you scoffed at the idea.

[Fru]

 

they are both extremely in the wrong. the biggest difference now is that trump has the majority support in both congress and the senate right now so don't expect anything serious to come from it.

 

 

Oh...so party politics is now contingent upon if someone is President of the US.

 

I guess if a Democrat is Secretary of State, it's perfectly fine then.

 

To some degree, yes. Being President is kind of significant.

 

And regarding the Clinton Foundation. It was investigated.

 

"In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed that there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.

“It was not impressive,” one source said of the February presentation. “It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence — if you could even call it evidence to that point.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

 

 

 

That's not what was being discussed.

 

How many Democrats supported investigating any of these issues?

 

 

No, what initially was being discussed was the Trump collusion with a foreign power to undermine democracy in the United States. You came in and started playing some "What aboutism" card with Hillary Clinton and Democrats, trying to equate emails and a foundation, both of which were investigated and cleared, to colluding with Russia to deliberately undermine democracy. It's not the same. She didn't win and the FBI didn't find anything. How many supported an investigation into something that wasn't deemed worthy of charges by the FBI? No clue. Perhaps we'd be having a different conversation right now if she had won, but she didn't.

[BigRedBuster]

Post #202 shows a graph on who supports investigating ties between the Trump team and Russia. The graph clearly shows a majority of everyone in the country supports the investigation....except Republicans. You responded with:

Just when you thought the GOP couldn't have any less of a spine.

 

No morals. No values. No ethics. No sense of patriotism. No sense of duty. No critical thinking. Just tribalism. "My guy with the R won." is all that matters. Anyone associated with that party should be ashamed at what they've help cultivate over the years and allow to happen to the most dignified desk and office in the world.

Enhance responded with the fact that both parties are guilty of this. For which, you responded in a manner that didn't pertain to what he was saying.

 

Post #202 was specifically about who supports the investigations and you responded to it claiming Republicans are spineless. (which they are).

 

So, this discussion is about who supports certain investigations. Now, both parties have played this party politics to a tee when it comes to investigations into their prize members. THAT is what our little conversation was about here....you can try to dodge and weave it back to discussing..."Trump collusion with a foreign power to undermine democracy in the United States". But, the posts above are still there to read.

[Nebfanatic]

BRB with the checkmate

[Fru]

Post #202 shows a graph on who supports investigating ties between the Trump team and Russia. The graph clearly shows a majority of everyone in the country supports the investigation....except Republicans. You responded with:

Just when you thought the GOP couldn't have any less of a spine.

 

No morals. No values. No ethics. No sense of patriotism. No sense of duty. No critical thinking. Just tribalism. "My guy with the R won." is all that matters. Anyone associated with that party should be ashamed at what they've help cultivate over the years and allow to happen to the most dignified desk and office in the world.

Enhance responded with the fact that both parties are guilty of this. For which, you responded in a manner that didn't pertain to what he was saying.

 

Post #202 was specifically about who supports the investigations and you responded to it claiming Republicans are spineless. (which they are).

 

So, this discussion is about who supports certain investigations. Now, both parties have played this party politics to a tee when it comes to investigations into their prize members. THAT is what our little conversation was about here....you can try to dodge and weave it back to discussing..."Trump collusion with a foreign power to undermine democracy in the United States". But, the posts above are still there to read.

 

That's what this thread is about. That's why I "dodge and weave" it back to that topic. You came in with some "What about" comments about Hillary and try to steer it to a discussion about Party Politics. If you want a thread about R's and D's playing party politics, go start it.

 

This is a thread about Trump and Russia. If Hillary used the Clinton Foundation to undermine democracy and win the election, we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what happened.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Post #202 shows a graph on who supports investigating ties between the Trump team and Russia. The graph clearly shows a majority of everyone in the country supports the investigation....except Republicans. You responded with:

Just when you thought the GOP couldn't have any less of a spine.

 

No morals. No values. No ethics. No sense of patriotism. No sense of duty. No critical thinking. Just tribalism. "My guy with the R won." is all that matters. Anyone associated with that party should be ashamed at what they've help cultivate over the years and allow to happen to the most dignified desk and office in the world.

Enhance responded with the fact that both parties are guilty of this. For which, you responded in a manner that didn't pertain to what he was saying.

 

Post #202 was specifically about who supports the investigations and you responded to it claiming Republicans are spineless. (which they are).

 

So, this discussion is about who supports certain investigations. Now, both parties have played this party politics to a tee when it comes to investigations into their prize members. THAT is what our little conversation was about here....you can try to dodge and weave it back to discussing..."Trump collusion with a foreign power to undermine democracy in the United States". But, the posts above are still there to read.

 

That's what this thread is about. That's why I "dodge and weave" it back to that topic. You came in with some "What about" comments about Hillary and try to steer it to a discussion about Party Politics. If you want a thread about R's and D's playing party politics, go start it.

 

This is a thread about Trump and Russia. If Hillary used the Clinton Foundation to undermine democracy and win the election, we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what happened.

 

I guess you want to redirect your posts I quoted.

[Fru]

 

 

Post #202 shows a graph on who supports investigating ties between the Trump team and Russia. The graph clearly shows a majority of everyone in the country supports the investigation....except Republicans. You responded with:

Just when you thought the GOP couldn't have any less of a spine.

 

No morals. No values. No ethics. No sense of patriotism. No sense of duty. No critical thinking. Just tribalism. "My guy with the R won." is all that matters. Anyone associated with that party should be ashamed at what they've help cultivate over the years and allow to happen to the most dignified desk and office in the world.

Enhance responded with the fact that both parties are guilty of this. For which, you responded in a manner that didn't pertain to what he was saying.

 

Post #202 was specifically about who supports the investigations and you responded to it claiming Republicans are spineless. (which they are).

 

So, this discussion is about who supports certain investigations. Now, both parties have played this party politics to a tee when it comes to investigations into their prize members. THAT is what our little conversation was about here....you can try to dodge and weave it back to discussing..."Trump collusion with a foreign power to undermine democracy in the United States". But, the posts above are still there to read.

 

That's what this thread is about. That's why I "dodge and weave" it back to that topic. You came in with some "What about" comments about Hillary and try to steer it to a discussion about Party Politics. If you want a thread about R's and D's playing party politics, go start it.

 

This is a thread about Trump and Russia. If Hillary used the Clinton Foundation to undermine democracy and win the election, we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what happened.

 

I guess you want to redirect your posts I quoted.

 

 

 

Could my posts that you quoted apply to Dems on an array of other issues? Of course. Looking back, I could have been more specific. I figured that one would discern that they were pointed at the Trump-Russia collusion issue since that what this thread is about.

 

I never said party politics didn't exist. Those posts are directed specifically at the GOP not wanting to investigate collusion with a foreign power, per the subject of this thread, which to me goes far beyond anything Hillary has done/been accused of.

[Danny Bateman]

As someone enjoying the back and forth, I would just add this.

 

I have no problem with investigating things from either party that truly warrant it. But at a certain point, Congressional investigators become too partisan and blow their credibility.

 

It's hard as someone who leans left to hop on board with a Congressional investigation of much of anything led by the same clowns that gave us SEVEN committees on Benghazi. Nunes bowed out like a servile puppy dog when it was discovered he was trying to protect his guy in the House investigation. Their credibility is completely spent, and at a certain point they're just manufacturing controversy.

 

I wish we could trust Congressional inquiries and get them back to a serious, non-partisan nature.

 

Graham telling the Intel community to hurry up is rich. They're the only serious investigation we've got.

 

 

A House committee formed to investigate the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans had 46 staffers and eight interns.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s years-long study of the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques during President George W. Bush’s administration had 20 staff members, according to the panel’s official report.

A special commission separate from Congress that reviewed the intelligence that wrongly concluded former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved 88 staffers.

A special Senate committee’s 1970s investigation into Watergate-era surveillance practices tapped 133 staffers.

A joint House-Senate probe of the 1980s Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan’s presidency involving secret sales of arms to Iran to try to win the release of American hostages, with proceeds going to Nicaraguan rebels, had 181 staffers.

 

This Senate investigation? 7 staffers.

[Fru]

^{As someone enjoying the back and forth, I would just add this.}

 

^{I have no problem with investigating things from either party that truly warrant it. But at a certain point, Congressional investigators become too partisan and blow their credibility.}

 

^{It's hard as someone who leans left to hop on board with a Congressional investigation of much of anything led by the same clowns that gave us SEVEN committees on Benghazi. Nunes bowed out like a servile puppy dog when it was discovered he was trying to protect his guy in the House investigation. Their credibility is completely spent, and at a certain point they're just manufacturing controversy.}

 

^{I wish we could trust Congressional inquiries and get them back to a serious, non-partisan nature.}

 

^{Graham telling the Intel community to hurry up is rich. They're the only serious investigation we've got.}

 

 

^{A House committee formed to investigate the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans had 46 staffers and eight interns.}

^{The Senate Intelligence Committee’s years-long study of the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques during President George W. Bush’s administration had 20 staff members, according to the panel’s official report.}

 

A special commission separate from Congress that reviewed the intelligence that wrongly concluded former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved 88 staffers.

 

A special Senate committee’s 1970s investigation into Watergate-era surveillance practices tapped 133 staffers.

 

A joint House-Senate probe of the 1980s Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan’s presidency involving secret sales of arms to Iran to try to win the release of American hostages, with proceeds going to Nicaraguan rebels, had 181 staffers.

 

^{This Senate investigation? 7 staffers.}

 

 

Wow.

[commando]

As someone enjoying the back and forth, I would just add this.

 

I have no problem with investigating things from either party that truly warrant it. But at a certain point, Congressional investigators become too partisan and blow their credibility.

 

It's hard as someone who leans left to hop on board with a Congressional investigation of much of anything led by the same clowns that gave us SEVEN committees on Benghazi. Nunes bowed out like a servile puppy dog when it was discovered he was trying to protect his guy in the House investigation. Their credibility is completely spent, and at a certain point they're just manufacturing controversy.

 

I wish we could trust Congressional inquiries and get them back to a serious, non-partisan nature.

 

Graham telling the Intel community to hurry up is rich. They're the only serious investigation we've got.

 

 

A House committee formed to investigate the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans had 46 staffers and eight interns.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s years-long study of the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques during President George W. Bush’s administration had 20 staff members, according to the panel’s official report.

 

A special commission separate from Congress that reviewed the intelligence that wrongly concluded former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved 88 staffers.

 

A special Senate committee’s 1970s investigation into Watergate-era surveillance practices tapped 133 staffers.

 

A joint House-Senate probe of the 1980s Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan’s presidency involving secret sales of arms to Iran to try to win the release of American hostages, with proceeds going to Nicaraguan rebels, had 181 staffers.

 

This Senate investigation? 7 staffers.

but they are the best staffers ever